Wednesday, August 31, 2016

The 87th anniversary of the 1929 Hebron Massacre

Posted on 24 August 2016by anneinpt

On this day 87 years ago one of the worst Arab massacres of Jews occurred in the ancient Jewish city of Hebron.

Prof. William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection has written an excellent recounting of the horrific events of the 1929 Hebron Massacre:

Hebron is a hot spot in many ways. Hebron and its immediately surrounding Arab areas are the single largest source of terror attacks during the so-called Knife or Stabbing Intifada.

It’s also a place where anti-Zionist and left-wing “liberal Zionist” American Jews love to gather to protest the Jewish “settlers” who live in a tiny section of the city. That section is under Israeli military control by agreement with the Palestinian Authority, with good reason. Hebron has a long history of violence directed at Jews.

…

Hebron had one of if not the oldest continuous Jewish communities in the world, dating back several hundred years at least. Until 1929.

On August 23, 1929, the Arabs attacked the Jews of Hebron along with numerous other Jewish communities.

But in Hebron it was particularly vicious. It was a blood frenzy in which the Jews were set upon with particular glee and slaughtered with knives, machetes and anything else available.

August 23, 1929, marked the beginning of two days of murderous rioting against the Jewish population of Hebron. More generally, it marked a week’s worth of disturbances in British-controlled Palestine, in which Arabs attacked and killed their Jewish neighbors, with there being some attacks by Jews on Arabs.

At the end of a week of violence, 133 Jews were dead, and 110 Arabs had been killed, nearly all of the latter by British security forces.

By far, the worst of the violence against Jews took place in Hebron, at the time a city of some 21,000 residents, of whom some 700 were Jewish and the remainder Arab Muslims.

As with attacks earlier in the 1920s, it was a Jihad against the Jews:

According to Dutch-Canadian journalist Pierre Van Passen who was in Palestine at the time, fabricated pictures of Muslim holy sites in ruins were handed out to Hebron Arabs as they were leaving their mosques on Friday, August 23, 1929. The captions on the pictures claimed that the Dome of the Rock was bombed by the Zionists. That evening, armed Arabs broke into the Yeshiva (Talmudic academy) and murdered the lone student they found. The following day, an enraged Arab mob wielding knives, axes, and iron bars destroyed the Yeshiva and slaughtered the rest of the students there. A delegation of Jewish residents on their way to the police station was lynched by an Arab mob. The mob then proceeded to massacre Hebron’s Jews — both Sephardi and Ashkenazi — who had lived peacefully with their Arab neighbors for years. With only one British officer supervising, the Arab police made no attempt to prevent the massacre.

The head of Hebron’s Ashkenazi community, Rabbi Ya’akov Slonim, had been on good terms with his Arab colleagues and offered his home as a refuge to Hebron’s Jews, believing that they would be spared. But the mob broke in and killed the Rabbi, members of his family and all those assembled there….

In total, sixty-seven Jews were killed and 60 were wounded. The Jewish community in Hebron was destroyed.

Watch this disgusting video of an Arab woman who fondly remembers the massacre:

Read the rest of the article if you have the stomach for it.

Aussie Dave at Israellycool also has a very good overview of the terrible events of that day:

Looking at newspaper articles of the time, we can gain additional insight.

Like this Palestine Bulletin report from Monday September 2, 1929. Note in particular:

The Hebron massacre was part of a widespread Arab campaign of riots and massacres around Palestine – in Jerusalem, Motza, Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Tzfat, in addition to Hebron – with over 100 Jews killed and over 200 wounded

The frightened Jews of Hebron being assured by the Arab district officer that there was nothing to be afraid of

Some of the murderers coming from an Arab village with friendly relations with the Jews

The terrorists murdering prominent Jews who had established good relations with the Arabs, and who, in one case, had even spent large sums on Arab education

The Muslim world claiming the Jews had provoked the “disturbances”

Muslim leaders asking the Jews be disarmed, as if that was the problem

Nowhere in the report are the Arabs referred to as “Palestinians”

Click to enlarge

There is much more at the post. Go and read the rest.

The following post on Facebook gives us the first-hand account by a British policeman – who was also Jewish – and who recorded the events as they happened. Below is my free translation:

The British Cavalry policeman in the picture below was called Hanoch Brodzitzki z”l.

And why is that of interest today? Because Hanoch, the British policeman, was serving in Hebron at the time of the crazed and vile massacre in 1929. Today many people have written about all the details fo the murder, and the crazed thirst for Jewish blood. And here in front of our eyes is the testimony of a Jewish policeman who was present in Hebron and even testified that he killed six murderers during the riots.

A summary of Hanoch’s testimony reached my late father z”l many years ago from the hands of Hanoch himself. My father went to Hebron, to the Machpela Cave (Cave of the Patriarchs), to the Avraham Avinu neighbourhood and Bet Hadassah, as a sort of closing the circle from Hanoch.

Hanoch left his Chumash (his Hebrew Bible) in which he wrote the chilling testimony. You are welcome to look at it. together with his Chumash, Hanoch passed on the murder weapons that he picked up in Hebron during the pogrom. My father passed on one of the weapons to the Hebron Museum where it lies as a silent witness to that terrible pogrom.

May their souls be bound up in everlasting life. HY’D.

Another horrific testimony from the massacre was passed on by the grandfather of pro-Israel activist Rachel Steinmetz. Rachel brings us the story of her grandfather’s cousin,Eliyahu Yissachar Senderov zt”l, who was murdered in the massacre:

The stories of Arabs storming Jewish homes while police casually watched has been written many times over and I won’t elaborate on the details, but the barbaric savagery which left 67 murdered and dozens injured is beyond belief. Over a couple of days, the Hebron community was wiped out and Jews in Jerusalem, Safed, Tel Aviv, Haifa and moshavim were attacked, maimed, raped, robbed, looted and murdered in a variety of creative ways. The casualty list is a lengthy one.

This massacre isn’t just a blurb in a history book for me, it’s personal. My grandfather Rabbi Ephraim Rubin zt”l rarely opened up about his childhood in Jerusalem, but after my first trip to Israel, he shared a shocking story. He was nine in August of 1929 and his 17-year-old first cousin from Petah Tikva came for a visit, accompanied by his mother. His cousin was traveling from Jerusalem to his yeshiva (seminary) in Hebron after a break. Rumors of Arab unrest were circulating and his aunt asked her son to stay home for a few more days, but Eliyahu Yissachar Senderov zt”l was eager to get back to his learning and insisted he’d be fine. His mother’s intuition kicked in, and, increasingly agitated and upset, she ran back and forth between her sister (my great-grandmother and namesake Chaya Rochel Rubin zt”l) and the bus stop at Sha’ar Yafo hoping to change his mind. This went on for several hours, as the bus only left when full. Unfortunately, the bus filled up, Eliyahu Yissachar zt”l left to Hebron, and he was soon after brutally murdered.

…

Over Shabbat, the violent Arab mob moved from home to home, torturing, raping, looting and murdering the defenseless Jews. They eventually made their way to Beit Burland, where many of the yeshiva students stayed, and after surrounding the building, began breaking down the doors. Avrohom Dov Shapira zt”l grabbed a knife and fought back valiantly, but was killed. Then they went after Zvi Heller zt”l and Shmuel Izak Bernstein zt”l. Moshe Aron Ripps zt”l asked for a brief moment to sayvidui (‘confession’), but they cut him down before he could finish. My cousin Eliyahu Yissachar Senderov zt”l was reportedly so badly wounded, he was nearly cut in half, but languished painfully for almost a full day. Horrifying. His final whispers were “I am the third victim in my family.”

The final words of Rachel’s post are so vitally important for us to understand the delegitimization and incitement against Israel, against “the settlers” and against Jews everywhere, that is still ongoing today:

The small Jewish community of Hebron today understand the history of our people and the massive crime that took place over that bloody Shabbat. That’s why they have staked their spot in Hebron in lieu of a much cozier life. They are bravely standing up to world opinion, to those who smear them and try to portray them as some sort of obstacle to world peace. On this day, the 87th anniversary of the ethnic cleansing of a 3,000 years old Jewish community, I am asking you to please think of Eliyahu Yissachar Senderov zt”l and the 66 other Jews martyred during the Hebron Massacre of 1929. There is no legitimate reason that a Jew should be unable to live safely in Hebron or anywhere else in the world. If anyone suggests otherwise, tell them about my cousin and his friends who were murdered for the crime of being Jewish, decades before “occupation.”

Monday, August 8, 2016

Faisal–Weizmann Agreement 1919 and comments

Faisal–Weizmann Agreement 1919

The Faisal–Weizmann Agreement was signed on 3 January 1919, by Emir Faisal (son of the King of Hejaz), who was for a short time King of the Arab Kingdom of Syria or Greater Syria in 1920, and was King of the Kingdom of Iraq from August 1921 to 1933, and Chaim Weizmann(later President of the World Zionist Organization) as part of the Paris Peace Conference, 1919 settling disputes stemming from World War I. It was a short-lived agreement for Arab–Jewish cooperation on the development of a Jewish homeland in Palestine and an Arab nation in a large part of the Middle East.

One or more of the Allies may have suggested that a representative of the Zionist Organization secure the agreement. The secret Sykes–Picot Agreement had called for an "Arab State or a Confederation of Arab States ... under the suzerainty of an Arab chief." The French and British also proposed an international administration, the form of which was to be decided upon after consultation with Russia, and subsequently in consultation with the other Allies, "and the representatives of the Shereef of Mecca."[1]

Overview

Weizmann first met Faisal in June 1918, during the British advance from the South against the Ottoman Empire in World War I. As leader of an impromptu "Zionist Commission", Weizmann traveled to southern Transjordan for the meeting. The intended purpose was to forge an agreement between Faisal and the Zionist movement to support an Arab Kingdom and Jewish settlement in Palestine, respectively. The wishes of the Palestinian Arabs were to be ignored, and, indeed, both men seem to have held the Palestinian Arabs in considerable disdain. Weizmann had called them "treacherous", "arrogant", "uneducated", and "greedy" and had complained to the British that the system in Palestine did "not take into account the fact that there is a fundamental qualitative difference between Jew and Arab".[2]After his meeting with Faisal, Weizmann allegedly reported that Faisal was "contemptuous of the Palestinian Arabs whom he doesn't even regard as Arabs".[3]

In preparation for the meeting, British diplomat Mark Sykes had written to Faisal about the Jewish people, "I know that the Arabs despise, condemn, and hate the Jews" but he added "I speak the truth when I say that this race, despised and weak, is universal, is all-powerful and cannot be put down" and he suggested that Faisal view the Jews as a powerful ally.[4] In the event, Weizmann and Faisal established an informal agreement under which Faisal would support close Jewish settlement in Palestine while the Zionist movement would assist in the development of the vast Arab nation that Faisal hoped to establish.

At their first meeting in June 1918 Weizmann had assured Faisal that "the Jews did not propose to set up a government of their own but wished to work under British protection, to colonize and develop Palestine without encroaching on any legitimate interests".[5] Weizmann and Faisal met again later in 1918, while both were in London preparing their statements for the upcoming peace conference in Paris.

They signed the written agreement, which bears their names, on 3 January 1919. The next day, Weizmann arrived in Paris to head the Zionist delegation to the Peace Conference. It was a triumphal moment for Weizmann; it was an accord that climaxed years of negotiations and ceaseless shuttles between the Middle East and the capitals of Western Europe and that promised to usher in an era of peace and cooperation between the two principal ethnic groups of Palestine: Arabs and Jews.[6]

Background

Henry McMahon had exchanged letters with Faisal's father Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca in 1915, in which he had promised Hussein control of Arab lands with the exception of "portions of Syria" lying to the west of "the districts of Damascus, Homs,Hama and Aleppo". Palestine lies to the south of these areas and wasn't explicitly mentioned. That modern-day Lebanese region of the Mediterranean coast was set aside as part of a future French Mandate. After the war the extent of the coastal exclusion was hotly disputed. Hussein had protested that the Arabs of Beirut would greatly oppose isolation from the Arab state or states, but did not bring up the matter of Jerusalem or Palestine. Dr. Chaim Weizmann wrote in his autobiography Trial and Error that Palestine had been excluded from the areas that should have been Arab and independent. This interpretation was supported explicitly by theBritish government in the 1922 White Paper.

On the basis of McMahon's assurances the Arab Revolt began on 5 June 1916. However, the British and French also secretly concluded the Sykes–Picot Agreement on 16 May 1916.[7] This agreement divided many Arab territories into British- and French-administered areas and allowed for the internationalisation of Palestine.[7] Hussein learned of the agreement when it was leaked by the new Russian government in December 1917, but was satisfied by two disingenuous telegrams from Sir Reginald Wingate, High Commissioner of Egypt, assuring him that the British government's commitments to the Arabs were still valid and that the Sykes-Picot Agreement was not a formal treaty.[7]

According to Isaiah Friedman, Hussein was not perturbed by the Balfour Declaration and on 23 March 1918, in Al Qibla, the daily newspaper of Mecca, attested that Palestine was "a sacred and beloved homeland of its original sons," the Jews; "the return of these exiles to their homeland will prove materially and spiritually an experimental school for their [Arab] brethren." He called on the Arab population in Palestine to welcome the Jews as brethren and cooperate with them for the common welfare.[8] Following the publication of the Declaration the British had dispatched Commander David George Hogarth to see Hussein in January 1918 bearing the message that the "political and economic freedom" of the Palestinian population was not in question.[7] Hogarth reported that Hussein "would not accept an independent Jewish State in Palestine, nor was I instructed to warn him that such a state was contemplated by Great Britain".[9] Continuing Arab disquiet over Allied intentions also led during 1918 to the British Declaration to the Seven and the Anglo-French Declaration, the latter promising "the complete and final liberation of the peoples who have for so long been oppressed by the Turks, and the setting up of national governments and administrations deriving their authority from the free exercise of the initiative and choice of the indigenous populations."[7] [10]

Lord Grey had been the foreign secretary during the McMahon-Hussein negotiations. Speaking in the House of Lords on 27 March 1923, he made it clear that he entertained serious doubts as to the validity of the British government's interpretation of the pledges which he, as foreign secretary, had caused to be given to Hussein in 1915. He called for all of the secret engagements regarding Palestine to be made public.[10] Many of the relevant documents in the National Archives were later declassified and published. Among them were the minutes of a Cabinet Eastern Committee meeting, chaired by Lord Curzon,which was held on 5 December 1918. Balfour was in attendance. The minutes revealed that in laying out the government's position Curzon had explained that: "Palestine was included in the areas as to which Great Britain pledged itself that they should be Arab and independent in the future".[11]

The agreement

Main points of the agreement:

The agreement committed both parties to conducting all relations between the groups by the most cordial goodwill and understanding, to work together to encourage immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale while protecting the rights of the Arab peasants and tenant farmers, and to safeguard the free practice of religious observances. The Muslim Holy Places were to be under Muslim control.
The Zionist movement undertook to assist the Arab residents of Palestine and the future Arab state to develop their natural resources and establish a growing economy.
The boundaries between an Arab State and Palestine should be determined by a Commission after the Paris Peace Conference.
The parties committed to carrying into effect the Balfour Declaration of 1917, calling for a Jewish national home in Palestine.
Disputes were to be submitted to the British Government for arbitration.

Weizmann signed the agreement on behalf of the Zionist Organization, while Faisal signed on behalf of the short-lived Arab Kingdom of Hedjaz.

Two weeks prior to signing the agreement, Faisal stated:

The two main branches of the Semitic family, Arabs and Jews, understand one another, and I hope that as a result of interchange of ideas at the Peace Conference, which will be guided by ideals of self-determination and nationality, each nation will make definite progress towards the realization of its aspirations. Arabs are not jealous of Zionist Jews, and intend to give them fair play and the Zionist Jews have assured the Nationalist Arabs of their intention to see that they too have fair play in their respective areas. Turkish intrigue in Palestine has raised jealousy between the Jewish colonists and the local peasants, but the mutual understanding of the aims of Arabs and Jews will at once clear away the last trace of this former bitterness, which, indeed, had already practically disappeared before the war by the work of the Arab Secret Revolutionary Committee, which in Syria and elsewhere laid the foundation of the Arab military successes of the past two years.[12]

The areas discussed were detailed in a letter to Felix Frankfurter, President of theZionist Organization of America, on 3 March 1919, when Faisal wrote :

"The Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organization to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper."[13]

The proposals submitted by the Zionist Organization to the Peace Conference were:

"The boundaries of Palestine shall follow the general lines set out below: Starting on the North at a point on the Mediterranean Sea in the vicinity South of Sidon and following the watersheds of the foothills of the Lebanon as far as Jisr el Karaon, thence to El Bire following the dividing line between the two basins of the Wadi El Korn and the Wadi Et Teim thence in a southerly direction following the dividing line between the Eastern and Western slopes of the Hermon, to the vicinity West of Beit Jenn, thence Eastward following the northern watersheds of the Nahr Mughaniye close to and west of the Hedjaz Railway. In the East a line close to and West of the Hedjaz Railway terminating in theGulf of Akaba. In the South a frontier to be agreed upon with the Egyptian Government. In the West the Mediterranean Sea.
The details of the delimitations, or any necessary adjustments of detail, shall be settled by a Special Commission on which there shall be Jewish representation."[14] [15]

Text of the Agreement

Agreement Between Emir Feisal and Dr. Weizmann[16]

3 January 1919

His Royal Highness the Emir Feisal, representing and acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of Hedjaz, and Dr. Chaim Weizmann, representing and acting on behalf of the Zionist Organization, mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realizing that the surest means of working out the consummation of their natural aspirations is through the closest possible collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine, and being desirous further of confirming the good understanding which exists between them, have agreed upon the following:

Articles:

Article I

The Arab State and Palestine in all their relations and undertakings shall be controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding, and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in the respective territories.

Article II

Immediately following the completion of the deliberations of the Peace Conference, the definite boundaries between the Arab State and Palestine shall be determined by a Commission to be agreed upon by the parties hereto.

Article III

In the establishment of the Constitution and Administration of Palestine, all such measures shall be adopted as will afford the fullest guarantees for carrying into effect the British Government's Declaration of the 2nd of November, 1917.

Article IV

All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures the Arab peasant and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development.

Article V

No regulation or law shall be made prohibiting or interfering in any way with the free exercise of religion; and further, the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall ever be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

Article VI

The Mohammedan Holy Places shall be under Mohammedan control.

Article VII

The Zionist Organization proposes to send to Palestine a Commission of experts to make a survey of the economic possibilities of the country, and to report upon the best means for its development. The Zionist Organization will place the aforementioned Commission at the disposal of the Arab State for the purpose of a survey of the economic possibilities of the Arab State and to report upon the best means for its development. The Zionist Organization will use its best efforts to assist the Arab State in providing the means for developing the natural resources and economic possibilities thereof.

Article VIII

The parties hereto agree to act in complete accord and harmony on all matters embraced herein before the Peace Congress.

Article IX

Any matters of dispute which may arise between the contracting parties hall be referred to the British Government for arbitration.

Given under our hand at London, England, the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen

Chaim Weizmann Feisal Ibn-Hussein

Reservation by the Emir Feisal

If the Arabs are established as I have asked in my manifesto of 4 January, addressed to the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, I will carry out what is written in this agreement. If changes are made, I cannot be answerable for failing to carry out this agreement.

Implementation

Faisal conditioned his acceptance on the fulfillment of British wartime promises to the Arabs, who had hoped for independence in a vast part of the Ottoman Empire. He appended to the typed document a hand-written statement:

"Provided the Arabs obtain their independence as demanded in my [forthcoming] Memorandum dated the 4th of January, 1919, to the Foreign Office of the Government of Great Britain, I shall concur in the above articles. But if the slightest modification or departure were to be made [regarding our demands], I shall not be then bound by a single word of the present Agreement which shall be deemed void and of no account or validity, and I shall not be answerable in any way whatsoever."

The Arabs did not obtain their independence and the Faisal-Weizmann agreement survived only a few months. The decision of the peace conference itself refused independence for the vast Arab-inhabited lands that Faisal desired, mainly because the British and French had struck their own secret Sykes–Picot Agreement of 1916dividing the Middle East between their own spheres of influence. With the conference deciding on the mandate system for all areas of the former Ottoman Empire, prior to statements from either the Zionist or Arab sides, Faisal soon began to express doubts about cooperation with the Zionist movement. After Faisal was expelled from Syria and given the Kingdom of Iraq, he contended that the conditions he appended were not fulfilled and the treaty therefore moot. St. John Philby, a British representative in Palestine, later stated that Hussein bin Ali, theSharif of Mecca and King of Hejaz, on whose behalf Faisal was acting, had refused to recognize the agreement as soon as it was brought to his notice.[17] However, Sharif Hussein formally endorsed the Balfour Declaration in the Treaty of Sèvres of 10 August 1920, along with the other Allied Powers, as King of Hedjaz.

The United Nations Special Committee On Palestine did not regard the agreement as ever being valid,[18] while Weizmann continued to maintain that the treaty was still binding. In 1947 Weizmann explained :

"A postscript was also included in this treaty. This postscript relates to a reservation by King Feisal that he would carry out all the promises in this treaty if and when he would obtain his demands, namely, independence for the Arab countries. I submit that these requirements of King Feisal have at present been realized. The Arab countries are all independent, and therefore the condition on which depended the fulfillment of this treaty, has come into effect. Therefore, this treaty, to all intents and purposes, should today be a valid document".[19]

According to C.D. Smith, the Syrian National Congress had forced Faisal to back away from his tentative support of Zionist goals.[20] According to contemporaries, including Gertrude Bell and T. E. Lawrence, the French, with British support, betrayed Faisal and the Arab cause rendering the treaty invalid. Georgina Howell, 2006, Gertrude Bell: Queen of the Desert, Shaper of Nations

Arab–Israeli peace diplomacy and treaties

References

The Sykes-Picot Agreement
'The Letters and Papers of Chaim Weizmann', Weisgal M.W. (ed.), Israel University Press, 1977, pp. 197–206.
Chaim Weizmann to Vera Weizmann, ibid, p. 210.
Tom Segev, 2000, One Palestine Complete: Jews and Arabs under the British Mandate, Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt & Company, New York, 2000, p. 110–111
C.D. Smith, 2001, Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 4th ed., ISBN 0-312-20828-6, p. 80
Book Excerpt from A Shattered Peace: Versailles 1919 and the Price We Pay Today, David A. Andelman (Wiley)
Khouri, Fred John (1985). The Arab-Israeli Dilemma. Syracuse University Press.ISBN 978-0-8156-2340-3, pp. 8–10.
Palestine, a Twice-promised Land?: The British, the Arabs & Zionism, 1915–1920 By Isaiah Friedman, page 171
Huneidi, Sahar (2000). A Broken Trust: Herbert Samuel, Zionism and the Palestinians, 1920–1925. IB Tauris. ISBN 1-86064-172-5, p. 66.
Report of a Committee Set up to Consider Certain Correspondence Between Sir Henry McMahon and the Sharif of Mecca in 1915 and 1916, UNISPAL, Annex A, paragraph 19.
cited in Palestine Papers, 1917–1922, Doreen Ingrams, page 48 from the UK Archive files PRO CAB 27/24.
'Jews And Arabs In Syria: The Emir Feisul Looks To A Bright Future', The Times, Thursday, 12 December 1918; pg. 7; Issue 41971; col B.
Letter by Emir Feisal to Felix Frankfurter, published in full at amislam.com (collection of correspondence).
Statement of the Zionist Organization regarding Palestine at the Wayback Machine (archived February 12, 2007), retrieved 14 November 2011
Statement of the Zionist Organization Regarding Palestine, MidEast Web, accessed 17 August 2006.
"Agreement Between Emir Feisal and Dr. Weizmann". MidEast Web.
News Chronicle, 9 July 1937, quoted by 'Palestine, star or crescent?', Neville Barbour, Odyssey Press, New York, 1947, p. 100
Official Records of the Second Session of the General Assembly (A/364), United Nations, 3 September 1947
Official records of the Second Session of the General Assembly (A/364/Add.2 PV.21), United Nations, 8 July 1947
C.D. Smith, 2001, Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 4th ed., ISBN 0-312-20828-6, p. 111

Further reading

Weisgal (Ed.). (1977). Chaim Weizmann to Arthur Balfour, The Letters and Papers of Chaim Weizmann. Series A, Volume VIII. Israel University Press.

External links

Text of the Faisal-Weizmann agreement, full text, reference document, United Nations
Text of the agreement and accompanying letters, agreement and collection of selected correspondence, archived at archive.org.
The story behind the forgotten agreement (Arabic)

Faisal-Weizmann Agreement Between Arabs and Jews About Palestine| 3 Jan1919

Signed on January 3rd, 1919, the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement was an agreement between Jews and Arabs who both wished to set up their own nations in the Middle East.

Faisal and the first Israeli president Chaim Weizmann-3-Jan-1919

Introduction

During the peace conference following World War I, the Emir Feisal, son of Hussein, Sherif of Mecca, signed an agreement with Dr Chaim Weizmann (who became later the first president of Israel) supporting the rights of the Jews in Palestine. However, in a handwritten note, the agreement was made contingent by Feisal upon fulfillment by the British of their promises to Feisal. Namely, the "Arab State" that would be formed, would include Syria. The British however, were bound by the promises they had made to France in the 1916: Sykes-Picot Agreement. Syria became a French mandate and Feisal was made king of Iraq instead. Subsequently, a spokesman for Feisal announced that "His majesty does not remember having written anything of that kind with his knowledge.

Subsequently, Weizmann averred that the Arab demands having been met, the agreement should be valid. He stated as much to the UNSCOP panel in Jerusalem:Testimony of Chaim Weizmann at UNSCOP. UNSCOP did not accept his view.

Agreement Between Emir Feisal ibn Hussein and Dr. Weizmann | 3 Jan 1919

His Royal Highness the Emir FEISAL, representing and acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of Hedjaz, and Dr. CHAIM WEIZMANN, representing and acting on behalf of the Zionist Organization. mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realising that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations is through the closest possible collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine, and being desirous further of confirming the good understanding which exists between them, have agreed upon the following Articles:

ARTICLE I
The Arab State and Palestine in all their relations and undertakings shall be controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in the respective territories.

Article I of the Faisal-Weizamann agreement on Jan 3rd 1919

ARTICLE II
Immediately following the completion of the deliberations of the Peace Conference, the definite boundaries between the Arab State and Palestine shall be determined by a Commission to be agreed upon by the parties hereto.

ARTICLE III
In the establishment of the Constitution and Administration of Palestine all such measures shall be adopted as will afford the fullest guarantee for carrying into effect the British Government's Declaration of the 2nd of November, 1917.

ARTICLE IV
All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures measures the Arab peasant and tenant farms shall be protected in their rights and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development.

Articles II,III, and VI of the Faisal-Weizamann agreement on Jan 3rd 1919

ARTICLE V
No regulation nor law shall be made prohibiting or interfering in any way with the free exercise of religion; and further the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference shell forever be allowed. No religious test shall ever be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

ARTICLE VI
The Mohammedan Holy Places shall be under Mohammedan control.

ARTICLE VII
The Zionist Organization proposes to send to Palestine a Commission of experts to make a survey of the economic possibilities of the country, and to report upon the best means for its development. The Zionist Organisation will place the aforementioned Commission at the disposal of the Arab State for the purpose of a survey of the economic possibilities of the Arab State and to report upon the best means for its development. The Zionist Organization will use Its best efforts to assist the Arab State in providing the means for developing the natural resources and economic possibilities thereof.

Articles V,VI, and VII of the Faisal-Weizamann agreement on Jan 3rd 1919

ARTICLE VIII
The parties hereto agree to act in complete accord and harmony on all matters embraced herein before the Peace congress.

ARTICLE IX
Any matters of dispute which my arise between the contracting parties shall be referred to the British Government for arbitration.

Articles VIII and IX and Singnatures of the Faisal-Weizamann agreement on Jan 3rd 1919

Given under our hand at LONDON.

ENGLAND, the THIRD day of

JANUARY, ONE THOUSAND NINE

HUNDRED AND NINETEEN.

Chaim-Weizmann.
Feisal ibn-Hussein.

The Faisal Weizmann Agreement: A Forgotten Piece of Arab-Israeli History

The debatable deficiency of many scholars when analyzing Middle East politics is evident with their failure to meaningfully address the pivotal political importance of World War I and the immediate events surrounding it – in this instance the Faisal Weizmann Agreement of 1919. Why did Faisal bin Hussein bin Ali al-Hashemi, descendant of the prophet Muhammad and son of Emir Hussein of Hedjaz, initially sign the Faisal Weizmann Agreement only later to appear to rescind his previous commitment to the agreement? What does this action demonstrate about the document’s post-script and on Faisal’s commitment to the agreement overall? This paper will analyze these questions by scrutinizing Faisal’s original intention on the creation of an independent Pan-Arab state, as well as his response and reaction to Jewish migration in the British Mandate of Palestine post-signing of the agreement. Therefore, the eventual King Faisal I of Iraq never fully intended to support and uphold the items expressed in the Faisal Weizmann Agreement of 1919, as is evident with his Pan-Arab political aspirations, and by his interpretation of the Jewish population and immigration growth within the British Mandate of Palestine.

The Provisions of the Faisal Weizmann Agreement

The Faisal Weizmann agreement is a brief document signed on January 3, 1919 in Paris, France that had tremendous political and social implications.[i] Analyzing the language used by both parties of the agreement, it seems like nothing short of a miracle in relation to today’s rhetorical devices evident within Arab-Israeli relations. The general provisions outlined within the agreement are as follows:

1. Both parties are committed to the most cordial goodwill and understanding, to encourage immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale while protecting the rights of the Arab peasants and tenant farmers, and to safeguard the free practice of religious observances. The Muslim Holy Places were to be under Muslim control.

2. The Zionist movement must undertake efforts to assist the Arab residents of Palestine and the future Arab state to develop their natural resources and establish a growing economy.

3. Create a commission after the Paris Peace Conference to agree upon a border between an Arab state and Palestine.

4. Both Parties are to uphold the Balfour Declaration of 1917.

5. Disputes were to be handled by Great Britain.[ii]

In relation to this document, there are relevant events and items that must also be addressed that may have affected the commitment and interpretation of Faisal to this agreement. The McMahon Correspondence between British High Commissioner Edward McMahon and Emir Hussein, Faisal’s father, discussed the creation of an Arab Kingdom in return for British support and an Arab rebellion against the Ottomans.[iii] The correspondence discussed what the Arab Kingdom was to potentially look like, some scholars claiming the future delineation of the British mandate of Palestine was the agreed upon demarcation within the correspondence, and others stating this was not the case. Also, the Sykes-Picot Agreement as well as the French invasion of Syria may have greatly influenced Faisal’s commitment to the agreement, in regards to his personally written condition to the document. Therefore these events will be analyzed within the context of Faisal’s Pan-Arab aspiration in conjunction with his written condition upon the original agreement. The condition said the following:

“If the Arabs are established as I have asked in my manifesto of 4 January, addressed to the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, I will carry out what is written in this agreement. If changes are made, I cannot be answerable for failing to carry out this agreement..”[iv]

This condition, which was not explicitly outlined or concurred upon by both parties of the signed agreement, will be the center of focus as to possibly why Faisal abandoned his commitment to the agreement’s provisions, even after writing post-scripts to the document such as:

“We Arabs… look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organisation to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper. We will do our best, in so far as we are concerned, to help them through; we will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home… I look forward, and my people with me look forward, to a future in which we will help you and you will help us, so that the countries in which we are mutually interested may once again take their places in the community of the civilised peoples of the world.”[v]

Emir Hussein and Faisal’s Quest for an Arab Kingdom

The place to start, regarding the intentions behind Faisal’s desire for an independent confederation of Arab states, is with his father the Emir Hussein of Hedjaz. The British began a correspondence with Emir Hussein in 1916 from their offices in Cairo in an attempt to establish an Arab army that would assist the British war effort against Constantinople. The Young Turks, now in power over the Ottoman Empire, never fully trusted the Emir Hussein given his influence and control over the holiest sites of Islam in Mecca and Medina.[vi] The British were informed by Hussein and other agents, [even the deceitful fraud al-Faruqi], that the local Arab populations would rise up and revolt against the Ottoman Empire given their seemingly second-class status within the affairs and governance of the empire.[vii] The Turkish were in the process of sending a small army to Hedjaz in the hopes of ousting Emir Hussein from power, and making Constantinople the protector of Islam.[viii] The Emir knew his forces were relatively weak compared to the Turkish and therefore played both the British and the Ottoman officials when failing to publicly support the British, but privately entertained the idea in the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence.[ix]

The correspondence alluded to the fact that the Arabs [an undefined body of ethnically and culturally different peoples] would support the British war efforts against Constantinople in exchange for British military relief and most importantly, British support for the creation of an independent Arab kingdom [which was to be ruled by Emir Hussein].[x] Thus, the desires and belief that the Arabs were able to secure an independent kingdom or confederation of Arab states began with the political bargaining and aspirations of his father the Emir of Hedjaz with the British.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement and Faisal’s Syrian Reign

The Sykes-Picot Agreement was concluded by British, French, and Russian foreign officials in 1916, and was leaked a year later in 1917 by the newly formed Russian Bolshevik government.[xi] The

agreement centered on the future spheres of influence each country would administer within the Middle East once the war was won by the allied powers. The three nations had outlined that the southern parts of Turkey and northern parts of Syria were to go to France, while the northern parts of the Arabian peninsula and modern day Iraq were to go to the British.[xii] The provisions outlined in this agreement greatly disturbed Faisal and other Arab counterparts due to their intention of establishing an independent Arab entity to be ruled by Arabs after the war was concluded. The Sykes-Picot document seemingly negated the fundamental aspirations of Faisal as well as appears to contradict the word of the British who were expressly committed [McMahon-Hussein Correspondence] to the concept of Arab independence.[xiii] Therefore one possible reason Faisal had hand written the condition upon the Faisal Weizmann document was due to the nature of the Sykes-Picot agreement and the blurred intentions it potentially portrayed regarding what Europe was seeking to implement within the region.

France’s Enduring Commitment to Syria and Faisal’s Dilemma

The same year the Faisal Weizmann Agreement was signed, elections were held for the Syrian National Congress.[xiv] The results amounted to about 80% of the congress to consist primarily of

conservative Arab officials who wished to establish an independent Arab state.[xv]There was tremendous unrest within the region of what was known to the Arabs as Greater Syria, especially within Lebanon where the Arabs feared they were to be dominated by Christians in the newly established French mandate of Lebanon.[xvi] Furthermore, the Syrian National Congress had become greatly alarmed by the signing of the Faisal Weizmann Agreement, which essentially supported the implementation of the Balfour Declaration and ensured an uninterrupted flow of Jewish migrants to Palestine. As a result, the Syrian National Congress rejected the provisions of the agreement, claimed Palestine to be apart of Greater Syria and declared Faisal as the King of the Arabs.[xvii] While the unrest had been steadily growing since 1919, the French were awarded the mandate of Syria in 1920 at the San Remo conference in Italy.[xviii] What was a tumultuous situation before the creation of Syria became worse as the French insisted on directly governing the region and its people.

This confrontation between the Nationalist Congress in Syria who supported Faisal and the French who sought to implement the Syrian mandate, ended with the resignation of Faisal from

power.[xix]After much bloodshed from both sides had been spilt, the Franco-Syrian war ended in victory for the European power. The determining factor of this brief Syrian national affront was at the Battle of Maysalun in 1920.[xx] The French forces were 3 times the size of the Syrians, and their superior technology and organization was no match for the local Arab fighting force.[xxi] King Faisal quickly realized that his situation was no longer tenable and fled the Syrian mandate to Great Britain who sought to empower him in Iraq.[xxii]The English believed he could be of assistance to their governance in Iraq given the British’s difficulty in maintaining a stable control within the region.[xxiii] Therefore this forced departure from the Arab nationalist agenda in Syria considerably contributed to Faisal rebuking his agreement with Weizmann and the Zionist Organization, as well as question Europe’s commitment to the concept of an independent Arab state. The Syrian National Congress had a clear Arab independence agenda and therefore the breakdown of the congress appeared to Faisal as potentially nothing other than European meddling that negated the condition on the Faisal Weizmann Agreement.

The Reign of Faisal I of Iraq and Jewish Migration Patterns in Palestine

After the British had decided their more direct form of governance over the area of Iraq was no longer feasible, they asked Faisal to become king of the mandate, which was supported by a 96% vote of the immediate population.[xxiv] In August 1921, Faisal was crowned as King Faisal I of Iraq. The newly crowned king still harbored aspirations of an independent Pan-Arab state, therefore he encouraged former Syrian officials to assist him in Iraq in order to maintain old connections as well as

foster better relations between the Arab people of both the Iraqi and Syrian mandates.[xxv] Another aspect of Faisal’s Pan-Arab aspirations were visible with his desire to create a universal military service policy within Iraq, while simultaneously pursuing an Iraqi oil pipeline that would extend to the West toward the Mediterranean [thus establishing a greater reliance of the East Arab territories within the region].[xxvi] The new Iraqi king also became increasingly certain that his condition upon the 1919 Faisal Weizmann Agreement was essentially void given his mild public opposition, but grave personal discomfort, on the 1930 Anglo-Iraqi Treaty that further politically divided Syria and Iraq, as well as Iraq’s joining the League of Nations in 1932 once the British Mandate had officially expired.[xxvii] As King Faisal I of Iraq, the leader’s most visible lack of commitment to the Faisal Weizmann Agreement [concerning his written agreement] was demonstrated with his grievance issued to the British Government concerning Jewish migration patterns in the mandate of Palestine.

In 1933, right before his death in Switzerland, King Faisal I went to Great Britain to give his sincere concern about the Jewish situation in the mandate of Palestine in regards to the present and potentially future Arab position.[xxviii] The Faisal Weizmann Agreement laid out two provisions, one that would recognize the Balfour Declaration [establishment of a Jewish Homeland] and the other than would allow a steady flow of Jewish migration to Palestine.[xxix] Therefore this paper will quickly address the Jewish population levels and growth in Palestine from 1890 to 1947, a year before the Israeli War for Independence began.

1890 – 43,000 Jews

1914 – 94,000 Jews

1922 – 84,000 Jews [11.14% growth]

1931 – 175,000 Jews [16.90% growth]

1937 – 386,084 Jews [27.91% growth] etc..

1947 – 630,000 Jews[xxx]

If Faisal had intended to truly commit to the provisions outlined in the agreement between him and Weizmann, then these growing population levels in Palestine would have never been as concerning as he expressed them to be in Great Britain in 1933. Reading again the post script at the end of the second section in this paper, as well as reading over the provisions outlining the support of Jewish migration on a large scale and supporting the Balfour Declaration, why did this phenomenon concern Faisal? What did he expect to actual achieve by issuing the hand written condition upon the agreement in regards to what it actually called for?

An Impossible Condition and a Lack of Commitment to Peace

The Faisal Weizmann Agreement and the condition written by Faisal, was a tricky diplomatic endeavor from the start. For example, the Syrian National Congress in 1920 had rejected the agreement but still claimed that Faisal, the Arab who had signed the document, as the legitimate King of the Arabs. Furthermore, Chaim Weizmann was a representative of the Zionist Organization and had little relative influence regarding the measures proposed in the Sykes-Picot agreement of the major European allied powers. Any European activity in the region was out of the direct control of Weizmann, and therefore Faisal had written the condition post-signing as if the Zionist Organization did have the ability to directly control European intentions, and thus Faisal avoided being bound by the Agreement’s provisions. Lastly, the written condition of Faisal, in regards to Weizmann’s potential interpretation of it, was non-binding. In other words, Faisal had written the condition to the agreement, only after both parties to the document had signed their consent to the positions clearly expressed within the final copy of the agreement and by that logic not on Faisal’s condition. Therefore the subsequent grievance Faisal I presented to Great Britain about Jewish migration patterns demonstrated how he never fully intended to support the provision of the agreement that called for Jewish migration on a large scale as well as fulfilling the Balfour Declaration.

Furthermore, Faisal had inherited his father’s intentions on creating an independent Arab state and therefore wanted to ensure that this became a realization. He potentially used the Faisal Weizmann agreement as leverage against the European powers to uphold their support for an independent Arab entity however, as history demonstrates, this clearly failed to influence any European decision making and only forced a conflict to ensue when Faisal began to openly denounce Jewish activity in Palestine. Regardless of the post-hand written condition of Faisal on the agreement, if the son of the Emir Hussein had any intention on fulfilling the provisions outlined in the document his political activity would have looked very different. Therefore, and in conclusion, King Faisal I of Iraq never fully intended to commit to his signing of the Faisal Weizmann Agreement as is evident with his pan-Arab political aspirations, as well as his inherently grave concern for Jewish migration patterns toward the end of his life. What would have been an enduring prospect for peace, ended up being a deceitful operation of Faisal’s, on behalf of the entire Arab population.

[i] “The Weizmann-Feisal Agreement.” Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Dec. 2011. <www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Reference+Documents/The+Weizmann-Feisal+Agreement+3-Jan-1919.htm>.

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] Fromkin, David. A peace to end all peace: the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the creation of the modern Middle East. 2nd Holt pbk. ed. New York: H. Holt and Co., 2009. Print.

[iv] “The Weizmann-Feisal Agreement.” Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Dec. 2011. <www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Reference+Documents/The+Weizmann-Feisal+Agreement+3-Jan-1919.htm>.

[v] Sicker, Martin. “Reshaping Palestine: from Muhammad Ali to the British Mandate, 1831-1922”. Greenwood Publishing Group, 1999. Print. p. 147

[vi] Fromkin, David. A peace to end all peace: the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the creation of the modern Middle East. 2nd Holt pbk. ed. New York: H. Holt and Co., 2009. Print.

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] Ibid.

[ix] Ibid.

[x] Ibid.

[xi] Schneer, Jonathan. The Balfour Declaration: the origins of the Arab-Israeli conflict. 1. ed. New York: Random House, 2010. Print.

[xii] Ibid.

[xiii] Fromkin, David. A peace to end all peace: the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the creation of the modern Middle East. 2nd Holt pbk. ed. New York: H. Holt and Co., 2009. Print.

[xiv] Pipes, Daniel. Greater Syria the history of an ambition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. Print.

[xv] Ibid.

[xvi] Ibid.

[xvii] Ibid.

[xviii] Schneer, Jonathan. The Balfour Declaration: the origins of the Arab-Israeli conflict. 1. ed. New York: Random House, 2010. Print.

[xix] Ibid.

[xx] Moubayed, Sami M.. The politics of Damascus, 1920-1946: urban notables and the French mandate. Damascus: Tlass House, 1999. Print.

[xxi] Gelvin, James L.. Divided loyalties nationalism and mass politics in Syria at the close of Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. Print.

[xxii] Ibid.

[xxiii] Fromkin, David. A peace to end all peace: the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the creation of the modern Middle East. 2nd Holt pbk. ed. New York: H. Holt and Co., 2009. Print.

[xxiv] Ibid.

[xxv] Ibid.

[xxvi] Ibid.

[xxvii] Ibid.

[xxviii] Stein, Leslie. The hope fulfilled: the rise of modern Israel. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2003. Print.

[xxix] “The Weizmann-Feisal Agreement.” Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Dec. 2011. <www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Reference+Documents/The+Weizmann-Feisal+Agreement+3-Jan-1919.htm>.

[xxx] Pergola, Sergio. Demography in Israel/Palestine: trends, prospects, policy implications.. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Harman Institute of Contemporary Jewry, 2001. Print.

Bibliography

Fromkin, David. A peace to end all peace: the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the creation of the modern Middle East. 2nd Holt pbk. ed. New York: H. Holt and Co., 2009. Print.

Gelvin, James L.. Divided loyalties nationalism and mass politics in Syria at the close of Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. Print.

Moubayed, Sami M.. The politics of Damascus, 1920-1946: urban notables and the French mandate. Damascus: Tlass House, 1999. Print.

Pipes, Daniel. Greater Syria the history of an ambition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. Print.

Pergola, Sergio. Demography in Israel/Palestine: trends, prospects, policy implications.. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Harman Institute of Contemporary Jewry, 2001. Print.

Schneer, Jonathan. The Balfour Declaration: the origins of the Arab-Israeli conflict. 1. ed. New York: Random House, 2010. Print.

Sicker, Martin. “Reshaping Palestine: from Muhammad Ali to the British Mandate, 1831-1922”. Greenwood Publishing Group, 1999. Print.

Stein, Leslie. The hope fulfilled: the rise of modern Israel. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 2003. Print.

“The Weizmann-Feisal Agreement.” Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Dec. 2011.

<www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Reference+Documents/The+Weizmann-Feisal+Agreement+3-Jan-1919.htm>.

San Remo conference

The San Remo conference was an international meeting of the post-World War I Allied Supreme Council, held at Villa Devachan in Sanremo, Italy, from 19 to 26 April 1920. It was attended by the four Principal Allied Powers of World War I who were represented by the prime ministers of Britain (David Lloyd George), France (Alexandre Millerand) and Italy (Francesco Nitti) and by Japan's Ambassador K. Matsui.

Resolutions passed at this conference determined the allocation of Class "A" League of Nations mandates for administration of the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire territories in the Middle East.

The precise boundaries of all territories were left unspecified, to "be determined by the Principal Allied Powers," and were not finalized until four years later. The conference decisions were embodied in the Treaty of Sèvres (Section VII, Art 94-97). As Turkey rejected this treaty, the conference's decisions with regard to the Palestine mandate were finally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nationson 24 July 1922.

Background

During the meetings of the Council of Four in 1919, British Prime Minister Lloyd George stated that the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence was the basis for the Sykes-Picot Agreement which proposed an independent Arab state or confederation of states.[1] In July 1919 the parliament of Greater Syria had refused to acknowledge any right claimed by the French Government to any part of Syrian territory.[2]

On 30 September 1918 supporters of the Arab Revolt in Damascus declared a government loyal to Sharif Hussein, who had been declared "King of the Arabs" by religious leaders and other notables in Mecca.[3] On 6 January 1920 the then Prince Faisal initialed an agreement with French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau which acknowledged "the right of the Syrians to unite to govern themselves as an independent nation".[4] A Pan-Syrian Congress, meeting in Damascus, had declared an independent state of Syria on 8 March 1920.[5] The new state included Syria, Palestine, Lebanon and portions of northern Mesopotamia which had been set aside under the Sykes-Picot Agreement for an independent Arab state or confederation of states. Faisal was declared the head of state. At the same time Prince Zeid, Faisal's brother, was declared regent of Mesopotamia.

History

The San Remo conference was hastily convened. It was attended by the prime ministers of Great Britain, France, and Italy, and representatives of Japan, Greece, and Belgium.[6]

Several issues were addressed: a peace treaty with Turkey, League of Nation mandates in the Middle East, Germany's obligations under the Versailles Peace Treaty of 1919, and the Allies' position on Soviet Russia.[7]

Great Britain and France agreed to recognize the provisional independence of Syria and Mesopotamia, while claiming mandates for their administration. Palestine was composed of the Ottoman administrative districts of southern Syria. Under international law, premature recognition of its independence would be a gross affront to the government of the newly declared parent state. It could have been construed as a belligerent act of intervention without any League of Nations sanction.[8]

For France, the San Remo decision meant that most of its claims in Syria were internationally recognized and relations with Faisal were now subject to French military and economic considerations. The ability of Great Britain to limit French action was also significantly diminished.[9] France issued an ultimatum and intervened militarily at the Battle of Maysalun in June 1920, deposing the Arab government and removing King Faisal from Damascus in August 1920. In 1920, Great Britain appointed Herbert Samuel, 1st Viscount Samuel as high commissioner and established a mandatory government in Palestine that remained in power until 1948.[10]

Article 22 of the covenant was written two months before the signing of the peace treaty. It was not known at that time to which territories paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 would relate. The territories which came under the regime set up by this article were three former parts of the Ottoman Empire and seven former overseas possessions of Germany referred to in Part IV, Section I, of the treaty of peace. Those 10 territorial areas were originally administered under 15 mandates.[11]

Resolutions

The decisions of the San Remo conference confirmed the mandate allocations of the First Conference of London (February 1920). 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 theBritish Mandate for Palestine was constructed. Under the Balfour Declaration, the British government had undertaken to favour the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine without prejudice to 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. Britain received the mandate for Palestine and Iraq; France gained control of Syria, including present-day Lebanon. Under the agreement, Great Britain granted France a 25 percent share of the oil production from Mosul, with the remainder going to Great Britain[12] and France undertook to deliver oil to the Mediterranean. The draft peace agreement with Turkey signed at the conference became the basis for the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres. Germany was called upon to carry out its military and reparation obligations under the Versailles Treaty, and a resolution was adopted in favor of restoring trade with Russia.[13]

Asserting that not all parts of the Middle East were ready for full independence, mandates were established for the government of three territories: Syria and Lebanon, Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Palestine. In each case, one of the Allied Powers was assigned to implement the mandate until the territories in question could "stand alone."

Anniversary celebrations

"Zionist Rejoicings. British Mandate For Palestine Welcomed", The Times, Monday, Apr 26, 1920, following conclusion of the conference.

In 2010, the town of San Remo marked the 90th anniversary of the conference with several events organized by the European Coalition for Israel and Canadian Supporters for Israel's Rights. A panel was held under the auspices of San Remo mayor Maurizio Zoccarato on the subject of the San Remo's legal significance for the status of Israel and Jerusalem under international law. Panel participants included Deputy Speaker of the Knesset MK Danny Danon, Italian MP Fiamma Nirenstein and lawyer Jacques Gauthier of Toronto.[14]

According to Gauthier, the San Remo Conference was a “key defining moment in history” on the issue of title to Jerusalem, a sentiment expressed at the time by Chaim Weizmann, president of the Zionist Organizationand later the first president of the State of Israel, who called it the “most momentous political event in the whole history of our movement, and it is, perhaps, no exaggeration to say in the whole history of our people since the Exile.”

At the 90th anniversary celebrations, Gauthier stated that the Jewish claim submitted to the world powers at San Remo was to be recognized as a people under the law of nations, to have the Jewish historical connection to what was then known as “Palestine” recognized; and to be granted the right to “reconstitute” Jewish historical rights in Palestine. While the Arabs also had claims on Ottoman territory, they were not specific to Palestine or Jerusalem.[15]

Text of Resolution

San Remo Resolution - April 25, 1920

It was agreed –

(a) To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the process-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine; this undertaking not to refer to the question of the religious protectorate of France, which had been settled earlier in the previous afternoon by the undertaking given by the French Government that they recognized this protectorate as being at an end.

(b) that the terms of the Mandates Article should be as follows:

The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22, Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognized as independent States, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The boundaries of the said States will be determined, and the selection of the Mandatories made, by the Principal Allied Powers.

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. 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, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

La Puissance mandataire s’engage à nommer dans le plus bref delai une Commission speciale pour etudier toute question et toute reclamation concernant les differentes communautes religieuses et en etablir le reglement. Il sera tenu compte dans la composition de cette Commission des interets religieux en jeu. Le President de la Commission sera nommé par le Conseil de la Societé des Nations. [The Mandatory undertakes to appoint in the shortest time a special commission to study any subject and any queries concerning the different religious communities and regulations. The composition of this Commission will reflect the religious interests at stake. The President of the Commission will be appointed by the Council of the League of Nations.]

The terms of the mandates in respect of the above territories will be formulated by the Principal Allied Powers and submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for approval.

Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article [132 of the Treaty of Sèvres] to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection.

(c) Les mandataires choisis par les principales Puissances alliés sont: la France pour la Syrie, et la Grande Bretagne pour la Mesopotamie, et la Palestine. [The officers chosen by the principal allied Powers are: France for Syria and Great Britain for Mesopotamia and Palestine.]

In reference to the above decision the Supreme Council took note of the following reservation of the Italian Delegation:

La Delegation Italienne en consideration des grands interêts economiques que l’Italie en tant que puissance exclusivement mediterranéenne possède en Asie Mineure, reserve son approbation à la presente resolution, jusqu’au reglement des interêts italiens en Turquie d’Asie. [The Italian delegation, in view of the great economic interests that Italy, as an exclusively Mediterranean power, possesses in Asia Minor, withholds its approval of this resolution until Italian interests in Turkey in Asia shall have been settled] [16]

See also

References

Further reading

Fromkin, David (1989). A Peace to End All Peace. New York: Henry Holt.
Stein, Leonard (1961). The Balfour Declaration. London: Valentine Mitchell.
"Conferees Depart from San Remo", New York Times, April 28, 1920, Wednesday. "CONFEREES DEPART FROM SAN REMO; Millerand Receives Ovation from Italians on His Homeward Journey. RESULTS PLEASE GERMANS; Berlin Liberal Papers Rejoice at Decision to Invite Chancellor to Spa Conference."

External links

Homeland for the Jewish people

A homeland for the Jewish people is an idea rooted in Jewish culture and religion. In the early 19th century, the Napoleonic Wars led to the idea of Jewish emancipation.[1] This unleashed a number of religious and secular cultural streams and political philosophies among the Jews in Europe, covering everything from Marxism to Chassidism. Among these movements was Zionism as promoted by Theodore Herzl.[2] In the late 19th century, Herzl set out his vision of a Jewish state and homeland for the Jewish people in his book Der Judenstaat. Herzl was later hailed by the Zionist political parties as the founding father of the State of Israel.[3] [4][5] In the Balfour Declaration of 1917, the United Kingdom became the first world power to endorse the establishment in Palestine of a "national home for the Jewish people." The British government confirmed this commitment by accepting the British Mandate for Palestine in 1922 (along with their colonial control of the Pirate Coast, Southern Coast of Persia, Iraq and from 1922 a separate area called Transjordan, all of the Middle-Eastern territory except the French territory). The European powers mandated the creation of a Jewish homeland at the San Remo conference of 19–26 April 1920.[6] In 1948, the State of Israel was established.

History

The book Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State, 1896) by Theodor Herzl

The Jewish aspiration to return to Zion is part of Jewish religious thought that dates back to the destruction of the First Temple.[7] However, the modern movement for the creation of a secular homeland within the confines of modern international law was perceived as a solution to the widespread persecution of Jews within Europe. This became the centerpiece of secular political Zionism. Anti-Semitism was not limited to Europe. The Zionist movement was preceded by several Jewish groups that had already popularized the move to Israel. For example, Israel ben Pereẓ of Polotsk[8] and hundreds of other Jewish groups settled in Israel from Europe, developing communities in Jerusalem, Hebron and around much of the country. This was in addition to the already existing communities of Sephardi and Ashkenazim in Tiberias, Tsfat and across the rest of the Jewish "Holy Land". Zionists, however, worked within the existing international legal framework, obtaining international legal rights in 1922. They also armed and defended themselves.

The modern legal attempts to establish a national homeland for the Jewish people began in 1839 with a petition by Sir Moses Montefiore to Sa'id, Khedive of Egypt, for a Jewish homeland in the region of Palestine.

Relation to Zionism

In 1896, Theodore Herzl set out his vision of a Jewish state and homeland for the Jewish people in his book Der Judenstaat.[9] He then proceeded to found the Zionist Organisation.

The draft of the objective of the modern Zionist movement submitted to the First Zionist Congress of the Zionist Organization in 1897 read: "Zionism seeks to establish a home for the Jewish people in Palestine secured under public law." Numerous delegates sought to insert the phrase "by international law", which was opposed by others. A compromise formula was adopted, which came to be known as the Basel program, and read:

The Sykes–Picot Agreement of 16 May 1916 set aside the region of Palestine for "international administration" under British control.[11] The first official use of the phrase "national home for the Jewish people" was in the Balfour Declaration of 1917, the final version of which referred to:

the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

The phrase "national home" was intentionally used instead of "state" because of opposition to the Zionist program within the British Cabinet. The initial draft of the declaration referred to the principle "that Palestine should be reconstituted as the National Home of the Jewish people."[12]

In 1919 the general secretary (and future President) of the Zionist Organization, Nahum Sokolow, published a History of Zionism (1600–1918)[13] He also represented the Zionist Organization at the Paris Peace Conference. He explained:

The object of Zionism is to establish for the Jewish people a home in Palestine secured by public law. "... It has been said and is still being obstinately repeated by anti-Zionists again and again, that Zionism aims at the creation of an independent "Jewish State" But this is wholly fallacious. The "Jewish State" was never part of the Zionist programme. The Jewish State was the title of Herzl's first pamphlet, which had the supreme merit of forcing people to think. This pamphlet was followed by the first Zionist Congress, which accepted the Basle programme – the only programme in existence."[14]

Britain officially committed itself to the objective set out in the Balfour Declaration by insisting on its forming the basis of the Mandate of Palestine (which it could have avoided), which was formally approved by the League of Nations in June 1922, and which formalised British rule in Palestine which had started in 1917. The preamble of the Mandate declared:

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on 2 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...[15]

Other possibilities

After a wave of pogroms in Russia, Joseph Chamberlain offered Theodor Herzl the establishment of a Jewish state in Uganda, East Africa.[16] In 1903 Herzl presented the British Uganda Programm at the Sixth Zionist Congress in Basel.[17]

In the late 1930s, the British Zionist League considered a number of other places where a Jewish homeland could be established. The Kimberley region in Australia was considered until the Curtin government (in office 1941–45) rejected the possibility.[18]

With the support of the then Premier of Tasmania, Robert Cosgrove (in office from 1939), Critchley Parker proposed a Jewish settlement at Port Davey, in south west Tasmania.[19] Parker surveyed the area, but his death in 1942 put an end to the idea.

The Jewish Autonomous Oblast, set up in the Russian Far East in 1934, represented a Soviet approach to providing a Jewish homeland.

Moves to statehood

In 1942, the Biltmore Program was adopted as the platform of the Zionist Organization, with an explicit call "that Palestine be established as a Jewish Commonwealth." In 1946, the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, also known as the Grady-Morrison Committee, noted that the demand for a Jewish State went beyond the obligations of either the Balfour Declaration or the Mandate and had been expressly disowned by the Chairman of the Jewish Agency as recently as 1932.[20]

The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine said the Jewish National Home, which derived from the formulation of Zionist aspirations in the 1897 Basle program has provoked many discussions concerning its meaning, scope and legal character, especially since it had no known legal connotation and there are no precedents in international law for its interpretation. It was used in the Balfour Declaration and in the Mandate, both of which promised the establishment of a "Jewish National Home" without, however, defining its meaning. A statement on "British Policy in Palestine," issued on 3 June 1922 by the Colonial Office, placed a restrictive construction upon the Balfour Declaration. The statement excluded "the disappearance or subordination of the Arabic population, language or customs in Palestine" or "the imposition of Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole", and made it clear that in the eyes of the mandatory Power, the Jewish National Home was to be founded in Palestine and not that Palestine as a whole was to be converted into a Jewish National Home. The Committee noted that the construction, which restricted considerably the scope of the National Home, was made prior to the confirmation of the Mandate by the Council of the League of Nations and was formally accepted at the time by the Executive of the Zionist Organization.[21] The Partition Resolution of the UN General Assembly died at birth when rejected by the Arabs. The UNGA has only the power to recommend.

In 1919 Harry Sacher wrote "A Jewish Palestine the Jewish case for a British trusteeship. In 1920 at San Remo the Allied Principal war powers selected this method. The Palestine Mandate is the trust agreement. Evidence of the intention of the settlors of the trust shows it was their intent to permit the Jews to settle immediately but not to rule until the defined territory contained a Jewish population majority and the capability to exercise sovereignty. Such evidence is the lodestar of the interpretation of the trust. Legal dominion in the collective political rights to self-determination vested in the Jewish People, the trust beneficiary, partly in 1948 and partly in 1967.

Founding of the State

The concept of a national homeland for the Jewish people in the British Mandate of Palestine was enshrined in Israeli national policy and reflected in many of Israel's public and national institutions. The concept was expressed in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel on 14 May 1948 and given concrete expression in the Law of Return, passed by the Knesset on 5 July 1950, which declared: "Every Jew has the right to come to this country as an oleh."[22] This was extended in 1970 to include non-Jews with a Jewish grandparent, and their spouses. These declarations were widely condemned and considered racist by Palestinians.

While nowadays the concept of a Jewish homeland means almost always the State of Israel under some variation of its current borders, in the course of Jewish historyafter ancient Israel and Judah there have been other proposals. While some of those have come into existence, others never came to be implemented.

Jewish state or a state of Jews?

There has been ongoing debate in Israel on the character of the state, regarding whether it should enshrine more Jewish culture, encourage Judaism in schools, and enshrine certain laws of Kashrut and Shabbat observance. This debate reflects a historical divide within Zionism and among the Jewish citizens of Israel, which has large secular and traditional/Orthodox minorities as well as a majority of people who lie somewhere in between.

Secular Zionism, the historically dominant stream, is rooted in a concept of the Jews as a people that have a right to self-determination. Another reason sometimes submitted for such establishment was to have a state where Jews would not be afraid of antisemitic attacks and live in peace. But such a reason is not a requirement of the self-determination right and so is subsidiary to it in secular Zionist thinking.

Religious Zionists, who believe that religious beliefs and traditional practices are central to Jewish peoplehood, counter that assimilating to be a secular "nation like any other" would be oxymoronic in nature, and harm more than help the Jewish people. They seek instead to establish what they see as an "authentic Jewish commonwealth" which preserves and encourages Jewish heritage. Drawing an analogy to diaspora Jews who assimilated into other cultures and abandoned Jewish culture, whether voluntary or otherwise, they argue that the creation of a secular state in Israel is tantamount to establishing a state where Jews assimilate en masse as a nation, and therefore anathema to what they view as Jewish national aspirations. Zionism is rooted in a concept of the Jews as a nation, in this capacity, they believe that Israel has a mandate to promote Judaism, to be the center of Jewish culture and center of its population, perhaps even the sole legitimate representative of Jews worldwide.

Partisans of the first view are predominantly, though by no means exclusively, secular or less traditional. Partisans of the second view are almost exclusively traditional or Orthodox, although they also include supporters who follow other streams of Judaism or are less traditional but conservative and would not object to a more prominent state role in promoting Jewish beliefs – although not to the point of creating a purely Halachic state.

The debate is therefore characterised by significant polarities. Secular and religious Zionists argue passionately about what a Jewish state should represent. Post-Zionists and Zionists argue about whether a Jewish state should exist at all. Because Israel was created within the sphere of international law as the instrument for Jewish self-determination, these polarities are captured by the questions Should Israel maintain and strengthen its status as a state for the Jewish people, or become a state purely for "all of its citizens", or identify as both? And, if both, how to resolve any tensions that arise from their coexistence. To date, Israel has steered a course between secularism and Jewish identity, usually depending on who controls the Israeli High Court of Justice.

On 19 November 2008, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni addressed the United Jewish Communities General Assembly in Jerusalem. In her speech, she argued: "These two goals of Israel as a Jewish and a democratic state must coexist and not contradict each other. So, what does that mean, a Jewish state? It is not only a matter of the number of Jews who live in Israel. It is not just a matter of numbers but a matter of values. The Jewish state is a matter of values, but it is not just a matter of religion, it is also a matter of nationality. And a Jewish state is not a monopoly of rabbis. It is not. It is about the nature of the State of Israel. It is about Jewish tradition. It is about Jewish history, regardless of the question of what each and every Israeli citizen does in his own home on Saturdays and what he does on the Jewish holidays. We need to maintain the nature of the State of Israel, the character of the State of Israel, because this is the raison d'etre of the State of Israel."[2]

See also

References

Napoleon and the Jews: Ben Weider, CM, PhD: Conference given at: International Congress of the International Napoleonic Society Allessandria, Italy June 21–26, 1997
William Bridgwater, editor-in-chief and focused on a homeland for Jews. The Columbia-Viking Desk Encyclopedia Jews, p.906. Second Edition, Dell Publishing Co. [New York] 1964.
"The Avalon Project : Declaration of Israel's Independence 1948". Retrieved 21 May 2016.
"Rights and obligations". ynet. Retrieved 21 May 2016.
Butcher, Tim (28 June 2006). "Hamas U-turn on Israel's right to exist". The Daily Telegraph (London).
Sovereignty over the old city of Jerusalem: a study of the historical, religious, political and legal aspects of the question of the old city: Gauthier, Jacques Paul - Genève : Institut universitaire de hautes études internationales, 2007 . - 1142 p.
Berlin, Adele (2011). The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion. Oxford University Press. p. 813. ISBN 9780199730049.
A. Arnin, in: B. Karu (ed.), Sefer Vitebsk (1957), 209–12; S. Ogurski (ed.), 1905 in Vaysrusland (1925), 164–71; Prestupleniya nemetsko-fashistskikh okkupantov v Belorussii (1963), 285–6.
Herzl, Theodor (1988) [1896]. "Biography, by Alex Bein". Der Judenstaat [The Jewish state]. transl. Sylvie d'Avigdor (republication ed.). New York: Courier Dover. p. 40. ISBN 978-0-486-25849-2. Retrieved 28 September 2010.
Jewish Virtual Library: The First Zionist Congress and the Basel Program
"Sykes-Picot Agreement". Retrieved 21 May 2016.
Stein, Leonard (1961). The Balfour Declaration. New York: Simon and Schuster. p. 470.
"History of Zionism : 1600-1918". Internet Archive. Retrieved 21 May 2016.
History of Zionism (1600–1918), Volume I, Nahum Sokolow, 1919, Longmans, Green, and Company, London, pages xxiv–xxv
"The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate". Retrieved 21 May 2016.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/Uganda.html
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/firstcong.html#6
"Haven". Retrieved 6 November 2010.
Duffy, Conor (18 January 2010). "The plan for a Jewish homeland in Tasmania".The 7.30 Report. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 6 November2010.
See Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry – Chapter V , the Jewish Attitude, [1]
See the report of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, UN Document A/364, 3 September 1947
Text of Law of Return

External links

Jewish State.com Zionism, News, Links
Israeli Jewish scene from ynetnews
Israel as a Jewish state from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
'Israel a Jewish state first', says former High Court Justice Dalia Dorner

Wednesday, August 31, 2016

The 87th anniversary of the 1929 Hebron Massacre

The 87th anniversary of the 1929 Hebron Massacre

Monday, August 8, 2016

Faisal–Weizmann Agreement 1919 and comments

Faisal-Weizmann Agreement Between Arabs and Jews About Palestine| 3 Jan1919

2JWKOS1