Ignoring legal historical documents?

At the British Parliament last Thursday, MPs unanimously passed a motion to condemn Israeli “settlement” buildings. So how is it that the UK government and the United Nations ignore legal historical documents?

In the light of the fact that 2017 is the 100th year of the Balfour Declaration; the fact that we also have the San Remo agreement; along with the Court of Appeal of Versailles who ruled that ‘West Bank settlements’ and occupation of Judea Samaria by Israel is unequivocally legal under international law (https://www.dreuz.info/2017/01/13/israel-is-the-legal-occupant-of-the-west-bank-says-the-court-of-appeal-of-versailles-france/ ), how is it that not one MP is bringing these legal documents to the attention of the house? The vote by UK MPs against Israel was unanimous and also included support for the UN Security Council Resolution 2334 which called on the Israeli government to halt all planned “settlement” activity.

As British MPs debated Israeli settlements or rather housing projects as the main barrier to peace, Israel was once again rocked by terrorism; a Palestinian terrorist shot and stabbed six Israeli civilians before being arrested in Petah Tikva. Despite terrorism (a legitimate barrier to peace) being mentioned in the debate, it was Israeli “settlements” that took centre stage and Israel shouldered the majority of the blame for the ongoing conflict. Is this really acceptable? Click here to view the full transcript of the debate.  To see the other side of the picture from what the political world are demanding, view an Honest Reporting video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrQXPEbDPDg&feature=youtu.be

In countering bias and misinformation about the Arab-Israel conflict, it is impossible to understand the complex legal implications of the Arab-Israel conflict without an acquaintance with the basics of context of the 1920 San Remo Resolution. Both the San Remo Resolution and the Balfour Declaration charged Britain with the duty to facilitate Jewish immigration and settlement by Jews in the territory which then included Transjordan, which had already been adopted by the other Allied Powers. As a trustee, Britain had a fiduciary duty (the highest standard of care) to act in good faith in carrying out the duties imposed by the Mandate. Furthermore, as the San Remo resolution has never been abrogated (repealed, revoked or do away) it was and continues to be legally binding between the several parties who signed it. It is therefore obvious that the legitimacy of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and the Jewish state all derive from the same international agreement at San Remo. So if the British Members of Parliament, along with the United Nations are reneging on their part to Israel, then they must do likewise to Syria, Lebanon and Iraq.



[The photo above is of an alleged ‘settlement’. This is actually the city of Ma’ale Adumim which is located along Highway 1, which connects it to Jerusalem and the Tel Aviv Metropolitan Area. This ‘settlement’ has hundreds of homes, medical centres, 21 schools, 80 kindergartens, and shopping centres.]

David Soakell

(Middle East News Correspondent)



About David Soakell

Believer in Yeshua (Jesus). In full time ministry work. Passionate about Israel, and publishes a weekly Middle East News Report.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s