 I have information, I have facts, I have findings which I want to impart, I want to transmit. The challenge is that there are a lot of facts. With the help of a PowerPoint presentation, I will try to summarize the relevant historical facts relating to the legal status of Jerusalem. After tackling the question who has legal title to Jerusalem, I realize that to get to an answer, you have to dig very deeply and go very wide. I undertook my research over 30 years ago, not realizing that it would take 20 years to put the answer together. The end result was this thesis which weighs 10 pounds. It could have been a lot heavier. If you try to summarize the historical and biblical connection of the Jewish people to Jerusalem, that aspect alone could result in a document that weighs 10 pounds. What I had to do as a scholar, as a jurist, is to summarize, to create a concise outline of all these connections, not only from the point of view of the Jewish people and Judaism, but from the point of view of Christianity and from the point of view of Islam. I am going to be submitting to you tonight that regarding Jerusalem, the historical background and facts are relevant in law. Many cities around the world have long histories, but in the case of Jerusalem, I will establish tonight that the decision was made followed by other decisions which recognized in international law the historical connection between Jerusalem and the Jewish people. Now, what are we trying to accomplish through these findings, through these arguments? We're talking about the legitimacy of the claim that the Jewish people and Israel have legal title to Jerusalem. One of the great challenges that we face is that there's a blurring between the political arguments and the political claims, narratives based on political arguments as opposed to legal arguments. The narrative of the Palestinians, together with their Arab neighbors and friends, has been widely heard, acknowledged and recognized by the nations, despite the fact that it's based primarily on political arguments. Tonight, I'm going to tell you that there is merit in French who say le bien fondé to the argument that the Jewish people in Israel have title to Jerusalem. I'm here as a Jewish. I'm here as a scholar. I am not here to in any way challenge your beliefs relating to the connection between Jerusalem and the Jewish people from a scriptural point of view, from a biblical point of view, from a faith point of view. What I'm saying is that these beliefs, these arguments are generally not accepted by the leaders of the nations. They're generally not recognized in the courts of the nations. What we have to do is focus on how the legal principles give recognition to the Jewish claims, to the claims of Israel. It's important to come to those conclusions because right now, often you will hear at the United Nations, that Jews are thieves in Jerusalem, that the land has been stolen, they're trespassers, they're wrongful occupiers, they're outlaws. But I ask you this, any one of these allegations relates to legal rights and entitlements. If the Jewish people in Israel have not been given the rights under international law, well, maybe they are thieves, maybe they are trespassers, maybe they're occupiers. But if they have been given the right to be in Jerusalem, for that matter, if they have been given rights to be in every part of the Holy Land, what was called Palestine at the beginning of the 20th century, then they are not thieves, they're not trespassers, they're not odious settlers, as is so often asserted and repeated in resolutions of the General Assembly of the United Nations and even at times in Security Council resolutions. So the nations in my view, I'm telling you now what my conclusion is, have dealt treacherously. They have denied the rights that have been given to the Jewish people. I believe that one of the great challenges facing the Jewish people, facing Israel right now, is the fact that there is a lack of knowledge and understanding of the facts and it's based on the facts that have reached my legal conclusions. There is so much that's relevant that it's easy to come to the wrong conclusion and it's easy for a false narrative to be accepted. So it's crucial for those who are interested in justice, for those who are interested in what is equitable and just to pay attention to the facts. And that's what I want to do in this presentation, go over the facts. And once I present the facts, I trust that a person with a conscience that is interested in justice will agree that the arguments are well-founded. I'm here to say that the question of title over Jerusalem is chose juger. It is rest judicata. It's already been decided. There's a moment in history when those with the power of disposition as a judge or judges in a court of appeal, they had the power to make the decision, they made the decision. And today we're running around as if those decisions had never been made. We're starting all over again and disregarding what was decided. So where does the chain of title begin? Because when you buy a house, the first thing your lawyers are going to do is make sure that the van doors, those who are selling you the house, have good title. Because if they have no title, they can't give you title. So what's important when I support the argument that Jewish people in Israel have been given title to Jerusalem and other parts of the Holy Land? It's important to show you where the roots of title are, where it all begins. The Balfour Declaration. That's one historical event that I trust all of you have heard about. 1917 in November of that year, the British War Cabinet in October made a decision, a crucial decision. It's in the middle of the war, the First World War. Things are not going particularly well. They are losing battles and they need all the support they can get. And they decide to reach out to the Jewish people of the world. Things have been happening in Russia. There was a revolution. There's a sense that Jews made a difference there. So they, for a number of reasons, which I can't go into because there are so many of them, but they decide to approve and pass this resolution resulting in the declaration, not of a man called Balfour, but of the British War Cabinet. This declaration takes the key policies and hopes and aims of the Zionist movement, and we'll talk about where that really gained a lot of velocity. And having considered the implications of that policy, the adopted, they decide to support the movement designed to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Interesting when we think about title, because in November of 1917, the British did not have title to Palestine. The British did not even have possession of Palestine. They were fighting the Turks. They were coming up from Egypt. They first got ahold of Bershiva, then they went up to Gaza and Jaffa, but in November of 1917, they didn't have possession. They didn't have title. Nevertheless, even though it's not the basis legally of title that eventually is given to the Jewish people, it is politically exceedingly relevant and significant. It was really important for the Zionist movement to get the British Empire to support their aims, to have a national home in that holy land. So, I have to go back to Herzl, because the question is, what exactly was the Zionist movement where the Jews who gathered to support this movement tried to achieve? So, if you look at the thesis or the publication of Herzl in 1896, the title of it is The Jewish State. And if you look at the subtitle, it's an attempt at a modern solution to the Jewish question, the Jewish question, the Jewish problem. You see, the nations have had to contend with their treatment of the Jewish people for centuries and centuries, centuries. Never mind the fact that a nation was forced to leave the holy land on a number of occasions. They were expelled. They were pushed out. But you know, the Jews scattered around the world were not treated well by many of the nations where they ended up. I'm talking about pogroms. I'm talking about murders. I'm talking about massacres. I'm talking about people being expelled from nations. I'm talking about rights being taken away or not given to the Jews that are given to other citizens of other nations. So the nations had a problem. The Jewish question is not just a question for the Jews. It's a problem for the nations. It's important to understand that because when the Balfour Declaration came out, it was an attempt by the Jewish leaders of the day to redress, to respond to the way that Jewish people had been treated for so many centuries. And they thought his idea, his proposal, Herzl's proposal, the answer is a Jewish state because we tried assimilating. We tried being really, really, really good Russians and Polish and French. He was a brilliant, journalist, writer, novelist. He witnessed the trial of an officer in the French army called Dreyfus. He was accused of treason. He was completely innocent. He did nothing wrong. But during the trial, he heard and read the comments of different journalists and and French writers saying, death to the Jews. Get rid of the Jews. That's when Herzl, who had had a pretty good life in Europe, decided the solution is our own place, our home, our nation. And that is what he introduced as a plan during the Basel Conference in 1897. If Herzl had stopped after writing this this this book, the movement would not have been launched. You know what he did? He managed to get 200 people together in Basel in 1897 and he united them, 200 Jews in agreement, one in accomplishment. You know what happens normally if you put 12 Jews together? He managed to inspire them and to convince them that the solution to their tribulations, to their challenges was a state, their own state. As a result, the Basel program was adopted at the end of the conference. I thought that was such an important moment in August of 1897 that I organized the conference in Basel in the very congress center where he had his conference. The only thing we didn't do is that he required everybody to wear a tuxedo, black tie. I didn't ask the attendees to do that but I almost felt like it because it was such a very special place. So out of Basel comes this movement and take it regrettably. 44 years old Herzl dies 1904. Interestingly in that conference in 1897 he spoke these famous words you know to the effect that in this place the state of Israel has been created. He said that in 1897 and then he said maybe not now, maybe not five years but certainly in 50 years. Interesting. 1897 to 1947 he was off one year. 1948 the state was born. So what happens with his work is that it's picked up by others principally in my view one of the key architects of the new state of Israel was Weizmann. And I want to point out to the fact that at the time of the Balfour Declaration the Holy Land wasn't called Palestine. It was part of Turkey, of the Ottoman territories and there were subdivisions, there were regions in Sanjax and basically that's what if you look at this slide that's what it looked like. The map that I'm showing you right now is of tremendous significance in my findings. If you forget a bunch of things tonight do not forget this map. It's a map of the Holy Land in the days of David and Solomon. And I stand here in front of you as a lawyer, as a jurist and I contend that it is legally relevant when you try to ascertain the title of the Jewish people to Jerusalem in international law. I'm going to prove it to you. In November of 1917 there was a conference in Rupalo in Italy during which three nations in the midst of difficult difficult moments in the war gathered in this seaside town of Italy and decided to establish the Supreme Council of the Allied Nations. You will see in a few moments that this Supreme Council is a very key component of my arguments because it's that council that has the power of disposition or the power of dispossession as we go down the line. The members of the of that council were Great Britain, France, Italy, then joined by the United States and later by Japan. These are the five nations who call the shots, who make the key decisions as we go forward. Important date December 11 of 1917. On December 9, the Turks were in Jerusalem were surrounded by the British troops and they surrendered but it was on December 11 that Allenby and the British troops entered Jerusalem, took possession of Jerusalem for the first time in 400 years. 1517 to 1917 Jerusalem is no longer under Turkish control. It is under the control of the British troops and their allies. Very key moment, very key moment with great ramifications for the Jewish people. The sovereignty of Jerusalem did not pass onto others until 1923. You have to understand that when you take possession of a territory, you occupy it. It doesn't necessarily mean that title passes. So today when we talk about the Holy Land, when we talk about Judea and Sumeria, when we talk about the so-called West Bank, there's a section that's occupied. Occupation is a component of the chapters of international law that deal with the law of war. These are not the chapters that are supposed to deal with the question of sovereignty. There are other principles that relate to the transfer and session of title. But what the nations have done today, the Palestinians have been very successful in convincing the nations that while certain areas of what was Palestine in the mandate period, the Holy Land, are still considered occupied even by Israel because they haven't been annexed by Israel, they've transformed that into saying occupied Palestinian territory. As if international law supported a principle that if something is occupied, it belongs to one party or another. It's a wrongful analysis. Paris Peace Conference, very key chapter, very key component of the analysis. Why? Because for six months in Paris, the Allies met to discuss the implications and consequences of the war for the defeated nations. They met at the Quai d'Orsay. You see the Quai d'Orsay in 1919 and you see the Quai d'Orsay today, and for those of you who've been to Paris a few times, it still looks like that. That still today, the place where the foreign affairs department of the French Republic is located. So I talked about the Supreme Council established in Rapallo in 1917. The four key representatives were Lord George of Britain, Orlando Italy, Clemence of France, Wilson of the United States. It's important because during that peace conference in February of 1919, there came an opportunity for the Arabs on February the 6th, 1919, and for the Jews on February 27, 1919. Please make a note of that date, February 27, 1919. Why? Because if you have a legal case, if you have an appeal before an appeal court, if you go to the Supreme Court of Canada, of the United States, there's a key moment in the proceeding where you present your claim. There's a document in our system called a statement of claim. Anybody ever prepare a statement of claim or you had to issue a statement of claim through lawyers? That's the document that sets out your allegations, your claims, what you're demanding. That's not a source of rights and obligations until the judges decide that they agree with you, that they recognize your claim or they reject your claim, one or the other, or they give you partial satisfaction and deny part of your claim. So it's on the 27th of February that the Jewish delegation, and you see this is so important, on February the 6th when the Arab delegation presented its claim, who did they present it to? Do you see the Supreme Council members that I mentioned to you before? It's not all the allied nations, five nations. They're the judges. They're the ones with the power of disposition. They're the ones who are going to make the crucial decision. The Arab representatives, the Amir Fizal was the leader. Lawrence of Arabia was there and there were others. What they asked for is first of all recognition that they have legal standing as a people, that they have rights as a people to certain territories. What thereafter is a big, big chunk of the Ottoman territories? What the Jewish people, what the Zionist delegation is after is one component only of the former Ottoman territories, Palestine. Would you believe that in their presentation, and I have the minutes of their presentation, the Arab delegation stresses that as far as Palestine is concerned, they're not demanding title. They're not asking for sovereignty over Palestine, but they want sovereignty over all of what was Mesopotamia, Syria, Lebanon. You'll see how big the area is that they're after. We'll see in a few moments what the powers decided in regard to those claims. Here we are, February 27th. Again, you've got the five nations. It's at the Kedahse, not in the main big, big room downstairs, but in the living room of the Foreign Affairs Minister that they have an opportunity to present their claim. They're led by Wiseman, Sokolois with him and a few others, and they each get an opportunity to present the merits of their claim, the good foundations of their claim. Do you understand why this is important? Because I'm suggesting to you that at one point in history, the Jewish people made their presentation. They submitted their case, and the only question after that is, did these powers have the power of disposition? Did they have the right to make a valid binding decision? And what was the decision? What did they want? What was the claim? What did they request from the powers? They wanted support for their dream, their policy, their aim to establish for the Jewish people a national home. But you will note that they're asking for the right to reconstitute what they had. They're not saying create something here or there. They want the decision to be based on what they used to have in the Holy Land. That's certainly relevant as far as Jerusalem is concerned, isn't it? If Jerusalem was a key component of what the Jewish people used to have historically, they're asking for that to be given back to them, to be part of the land to be given to them. Now, they present a map with certain boundaries, which I'll show you. And they ask for the sovereignty to be given not to them right away, but to an institution or a guardian or a trustee to give them the opportunity, having only 70 or 80,000 Jewish people in the Holy Land at the time, compared to maybe six, 700,000 Arabs, they want the opportunity over a period of time to grow for the population to become more significant through immigration. And then when there are enough Jews to have the autonomy and independence declared. So that's the game plan. Some were arguing that the Jews should have stayed right away, but the majority was saying, that's not a good idea. We're not quite ready. So here's the map. On your right is the map that was submitted. And what's interesting about it is that it comprises, it covers almost every part of the Holy Land that was biblically significant. Remember, there were a couple of tribes, I think two and a half tribes, who had been allotted lands on the east side of the Jordan River. Well, what they were asking for included that. You'll see there's a dotted line next to the territory claimed by the Zionist delegation. That's the rail line, the Edge Isles Railroad, which was used by Muslims to attend the pilgrimage in Mecca on a yearly basis. So wisely, the Jews did not ask for their territory to trespass over that. And I've put a map next to it showing you the biblical significance of different components of the Holy Land. That's what they wanted. What happened next? In the middle of the Paris Peace Conference, the Allies did something radically new and significant. They decided that it was important to prevent further world conflicts because the First World War resulted in so many millions and millions of deaths that they were terrified of the reoccurrence of such a bloody confrontation. So they decided that to establish an international organization which they called the League of Nations and the document, the treaty that does that is the covenant of the League of Nations. Why is that significant in my analysis? Because part of one article of that introduces something absolutely revolutionary. Instead of the victorious nations just grabbing the territories of the nations they defeated, they did that in some cases. In some situations, they agree that a new system, a mandate system, a trust system which they call a sacred trust will be set up for people or beneficiaries who are not quite ready to become the leaders of a nation. And so just to enable them to become more established and more experienced and in the case of the Jewish people, to enable Palestine to receive more Jewish people, they set up the sacred trust. So article 22, important. So now I want to show you, before I get to the decisions relating to the Holy Land, remember I told you that the Supreme Council is extremely significant? Look at the Treaty of Versailles. When German territories are partitioned or taken from the Germans, who gets title? The principle powers, meaning the five nations that we've talked about. Another example, the Treaty of Triennant. In this case, Hungary, also a defeated nation, loses some territories. Who gets title to that territory? The five members of the Supreme Council. US, British, France, Italy, and Japan. It's important to understand this kind of international maneuver because that's what's going to happen relating to the Holy Land in Palestine. I take you now to the San Remo Conference. Those of you who've heard about the San Remo Conference, well, you should have. Those of you who have not heard about the San Remo Conference, then how can you put the puzzle together without the key piece of the puzzle? It is so important to understand what happened here. In April of 1920, the Supreme Powers, the Supreme Council, meets in this villa in San Remo. San Remo is a very nice place, by the way. We've been there a few times. It's on the Italian Riviera. You go to Monaco and turn right and you're there. And there the powers met for several days, but during two days, April 24, April 25, they tackle the question. As judges would do in a chamber, what do we do about the presentation of the Arabs? What do we do about the presentation of the Jews in February of 1919 relating to the Ottoman territories? Do we say yes to the Jews? What do we give to the Arabs? That's what they're talking about. On April 25, they make the decision. Is this important? I've just explained to you that they have the power of disposition, that they're going to receive title from the Turks, which means they can turn around and give title to the Jews and to the Arabs. And they do that in San Remo. Who's there? When I visited the villa with my wife and one of our daughters, and I must stress tonight that, as I do whenever I have an opportunity to speak, that without my family, without my wife, Rani, who's here tonight and three of our four daughters who are here tonight, this work would never have been completed. If you're going to undertake something of this magnitude, it's a weighty, it's a heavy thing to tackle. And I'm just very, very thankful to my family for the support they've given me over the last years, because without them, this would not have been completed. So we're in Italy, we're in San Remo, we're in the villa. It's now a luxury condo. So we ended up renting one of the units of the villa. This is over 10 years ago in 2007, in April of 2007. And while I'm there, I'm invited for tea by a lady who owns another place and she's heard about my work and she gives me an envelope filled with pictures about the event that took place in April of 1920. So that when I talk to you about this, I have evidence it happened. So who was there? It turned out that the apartment that released was half the room where this event took place. Can you imagine? I was reading the minutes of the San Remo conference sitting in the room where it happened. So the UK was there, the Italy was there, France was there, the UK and the ambassador of the US was there as well. And they make a decision. Here they are standing in front of the villa after they've made a decision. On April 25, they decide that the Balfour Declaration policy concerning the establishment of a Jewish home in Palestine will be recognized. The title to that area of the Ottoman territories is to go to the Jewish people, while title to the huge area known as Mesopotamia, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon are to go to the Arabs. Make decisions in favor of the Arabs for the bulk of the Ottoman territories taken away from the Turks and give to the Jews the very area they were seeking. Now, this is the crucial decision you should memorize. Go to bed tonight, start memorizing this and then recite it to others. Because what I'm doing here has to be duplicated, has to be understood and shared with others. Because these are fundamental truths underlying the claim of Israel and the Jewish people to Jerusalem and the Holy Land. This is such a key date, April 25, 1920. During the meeting, the French Prime Minister, Milan, turns to the British guy, the Prime Minister, Lord George, they're deliberating about the decision and they say, well, Palestine, what do you mean by Palestine? What exactly do you mean? And Lord George responds, well, we're going to give them from Dan to Bershiba. So the French guy says, what do you mean? This is part of the discussion between the leaders. What Lord George does is that he pulls out a map. Remember the map that I referred to earlier on at the outset and I said the Kingdom of David and Solomon? What Lord George says, well, my best way to support a fair boundary and territory equal to Palestine is this map by a very famous archaeologist, Reverend George Adam Smith, and he felt that that would be a very accurate representation of what should be given to the Jewish people. Remember in Paris, the Jewish delegation wanted recognition of the historical connection between the Jewish people and Palestine and they presented a map. Well, this map covers almost everything that the Zionist organization was presenting in Paris and the Allied powers in San Remo agree that that will be in essence the Palestine to be given to the Jewish people. The historical connection has been recognized as a result of this decision and you will note that it includes Jerusalem which is very much in the center of this map. If you want to understand the significance of the decisions of the allies in San Remo, just don't take my word for it. Look at what Wiseman had to say. The San Remo decision has come that recognition of our rights in Palestine is embodied in a treaty with Turkey. We'll talk about that treaty and has become part of international law. This is the most momentous political event in the whole history of our movement, the Zionist movement and perhaps no exaggeration to say in the whole history of our people since the exile. Was that an important decision according to him? The most important decision since the exile. He thought it was important and that's why I urge not only my Jewish audiences around the world but the nations will have an opportunity to make presentations to note what happened in this crucial conference in San Remo. After the conference the Turks signed a treaty with whom? With four of the five allies because the US didn't declare war against Turkey so they weren't part of this treaty but four of the five nations we've been talking about enter into this treaty and look at the provisions of article 132. Turkey hereby renounces in favor of the principal allied powers all rights and title to all the territories outside of Europe including Palestine. So remember what we talked about earlier if you're going to make an argument about who's got title it begins with the party or the parties that give you title receiving title and the Turks gave title. We organized the conference last year in San Remo that was referred to a little earlier and here we are a gathering in front of that the steps of the very same steps where the leaders stood in 1920 and you'll see that if you look at the first row it's dominated by my ladies. I told you that without them there's so little that can be accomplished. If you're going to take on something this big make sure you have the support of your spouse and your family. Mandate for Palestine out of all this certain international treaties are prepared and drafted to reflect what was decided in San Remo. Look at the first draft prepared by the British of that mandate. First paragraph says well it's easier to see it here whereas that section of the treaty with the Turks as a result of that they renounce in favor of the principal powers all rights entitled to Palestine that's what I've been talking about so in this preamble it's crucial to note that the right to reconstitute what the Jews used to have is granted. The historical connection which I told you the Jews wanted recognized in Paris which was recognized in San Remo it's right in the treaty. There were two other treaties for the other territories Mesopotamia and Syria. Those treaties if you look at the provisions that are the key provisions you will see that they're in favor of the inhabitants of those territories but the mandate for Palestine is unique. It's not only for the Jewish people who are there it's for the Jews worldwide. They're deemed to be the beneficiaries of this special treaty. The right to emigrate is given to them. The right to purchase land is given to them the Jews worldwide. So in article 25 of the mandate the original article you will see that this is a provision that has to do with the permanent court of justice. The British before the treaty is adopted by the League of Nations change article 25 and I'll show you what they do. This is the key article of the mandate which picks up the decision in San Remo which picks up the Balfour Declaration. This is where the rights are given to the Jewish people and it refers to the preamble which means one of the key set of rights recognized is in the preamble. In the preamble look at the bottom the historical connection is recognized and the right to reconstitute is recognized. This is an international convention. This is a source of rights and obligations in international law. This is why I said earlier that this biblical map that was selected during the San Remo conference becomes so relevant. How can the Jewish people reconstitute what they used to have without Jerusalem? It took 200 pages of my thesis to summarize some of the connections between the Jewish people and Jerusalem. If the historical connection has been recognized obviously it includes Jerusalem. You can't have a national home without Jerusalem. I looked for the original text of the mandate and took forever but at the archives in London it took them months to finally locate it and it was tucked away with the mandate for East Africa, Togo Land and Cameroon. The British couldn't even find the original. This is the original. Found it but it took forever. So here's what happens. The blue is what was supposed to be given to the Jewish people and everything that's green that was going to the Arabs. That's what they wanted. Everything that's pink there was supposed to be part of the mandate for Palestine and the beneficiaries were to be the Jews. However in September I should say in March of 1921 there was a crisis with the Arabs and as a result Churchill set up a conference in Cairo in March of 1921 and under pressure he agreed to partition that Palestine to give away 70 percent of the land that was supposed to be the Jewish land. And then in September of 1922 there's a meeting in front of the Council of the League of Nations and the British who are not the trustees, they're not the recipients of the supervision guardianship rights. They're delegated. They've received from the League of Nations their mandate. So they're supposed to interact with the League of Nations. There's a committee, the permanent commission of the mandates and they come and submit this memorandum to split up Palestine and on September 16 it's accepted by the Council. But certain rights were supposed to be protected. The Jewish people were to continue to have rights in what was Trans Jordan to practice their faith, to have residences and settlements. Guess what happened? No Jews were allowed to remain in that part of Palestine. Is that exactly what is being proposed today? We're talking about a Palestinian state that must be cleansed of Jews. What kind of system of justice? What kind of proposition from a perspective of human rights when all of a sudden we're saying as far as Israel territories are concerned, Arabs must have equal rights. If you step on a toe, right to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court judges will bend over backwards to recognize those rights. But in the future Palestinian state, covering areas that are in the center of the map that I showed you where the historical connections have been already recognized, the nations are proposing, Jews get out. What happened in Gaza is to be duplicated in the territory's control by the Palestinians and in your state. And the nations think that this is fair, just, and equitable. It's an abomination. What fair minded person, what decent person interested in law and legal principles could argue such a thing. See, this is the article 25 that the British replaced. And these articles, 15 and the next one, 16, they were supposed to survive the partition. These certainly were supposed to be honored in what was left of Palestine. But it was supposed to be honored in the new Arab state on the other side. You know, religious rights and entitlements, article 16, can't discriminate on the basis of religion. Does complete expulsion of a community constitute discrimination in breach of these provisions? So what the nations are doing now is breaching the very principles of article 15 and 16 of the mandate, which protected the rights of the Jewish people in Trans Jordan, but certainly in the remnant of Palestine. So what happened as a result is this, within Palestine, an Arab state was created. This is a map from the League of Nations. I have the original. So when there's a claim being made that Arabs should have a state in Palestine, they have one according to the League of Nations. I'm here to present facts. This is not a presumption. This is not my opinion. This is a fact documented by the League of Nations. The Arabs who've changed their names going down the road to Palestinians, but the parties to the territorial dispute were always Arabs and Jews. But because the Arabs got so much, you change your name from Arab to Palestinian, then you can start afresh and get more. It's not right. So here's the result. In addition to everything they got as a result of the same remote decisions, as a result of the Treaty of Sev, as a result of their mandates, they get more. Not only that, but those who get control of East Palestine are not even from the area. They're Ashamites. It's Abdullah, the brother of Hazal, the son of Hussein. He was fussing because his brother had been kicked out of Damascus by the French. So the British set up Faisal in Iraq and, anyway, Abdullah gets this. Treaty of Lausanne finally completes the legal chain title because the Treaty of Sev, even though it was signed and incorporated all the decisions in San Remo, it eventually wasn't ratified by the parliament, so it's completed by the Treaty of Lausanne, and that's when sovereignty in respect to Palestine, Iraq, and Lebanon and Syria passed to those who received it. McDonald White Paper, 1939. The betrayal of the Jewish people by the British. I could spend an hour on this alone. As a result of this White Paper, immigration is restricted, rights to purchase, lands, acquired lands by the Jews are restricted, limited to 75,000 Jews over five years, and then after five years, immigration will depend on what the Arabs decide. Can you imagine how many will be allowed to come after five years? This is an abomination. This is ugly. It's happening in 1939, and you know what's already happening to the Jewish people of Europe in 1939. Shame on the British for adopting such a policy. The UN Charter, the League of Nations can't survive this war. It's dissolved, but still in the final resolution of the League of Nations, it's stressed that what happens next must be to continue to administer the mandated territories for the well-being of the people's concern. Who are the people concerned in Palestine? Of course, the Arabs in the Palestinian mandate are given rights. We have to respect their civil rights. We have to respect their religious rights. They still have rights, but as far as sovereignty and title is concerned, that was given to the Jewish people. Exactly what they got in Lebanon, Syria, and Mesopotamia. Article 80 of the UN Charter is designed to protect the rights that were given to peoples before the UN was established. Nothing in this chapter should be construed to alter in any matter whatsoever the rights of states or any peoples. Does that include the Jewish people? So when the UN was set up, there were supposed to be mindful of the principles of the rights granted under the mandate for Palestine after the same remote decision. Have they done that? Partition resolution of 1947. It's a resolution, a recommendation of the General Assembly of the UN. According to the Charter, General Assembly resolutions are never binding in matters like this. It was a mere recommendation. In 1947, is it fair to say that the Jewish people of Europe and the Jewish people in Israel or in Palestine, as it still was, and elsewhere in the world, are traumatized? They're in shock? There was a plan to exterminate them? Do you find that it's surprising that they would be prepared to accept part of the land that was promised to them, that was pledged to them under a sacred trust? They're so desperate, they'll say, okay, we'll take any part of it. Any part of it. The Arabs say no to the partition plan. And today, I hear arguments based on the partition plan, on this resolution of the General Assembly. Makes no sense. The only way it could have become a source of rights and obligations is if both the Arabs and the Jews had accepted it and signed a treaty incorporating the principles of the partition resolution. But the Arabs refuse to accept the partition. They wanted the whole thing, not part. Jerusalem, if you look at that map, was a special territory, which wasn't supposed to be Jewish, wasn't supposed to be part of the Arab state in the partition resolution. It was a special regime, territorial corpus separatum is what they called it. And in the resolution, it said that after 10 years it would be a referendum. So what I read is that Bangurian and Golda Mayer and key Jewish leaders were all saying, listen, we're already a majority in Jerusalem in 1947, a majority of the inhabitants were Jewish. Well, you can be sure that after 10 years, there'll be even more. We'll win the referendum and we can add Jerusalem to our territory. Anyway, the birth of the state of Israel in 1948. We know we were celebrating recently this very, very crucial date for your information. It's often believed that May 14 is the birth date from using our calendar of the state. But in fact, if you read the declaration, it takes effect at midnight, therefore May 15. The declaration was read on May 14 in Tel Aviv. But the birth begins midnight, May 15. And the declaration, I wish I'd been there to give some advice. There's no reference to the same remote resolution. They do mention the mandate, but it does refer to the fact that the historical connection between the Jewish people and Israel has been recognized. All right, conclusion. Decision of the International Court of Justice in 1950 makes it clear that even though the League of Nations is gone, the principles in the mandates are still relevant. When I think of the British, and it's interesting that this is a very day that a future king of Great Britain is in Israel, for the first time there's someone of that importance from the monarchy visiting Israel. I think of the British and I think of the good they did, the bad and the ugly. The good, Balfour Declaration. They were part of putting together the covenant of the League with the trust that we talked about. They were there, played a key role in San Remo. Lord George was such a key, key individual. The Treaty of Sev, they were parties to that which incorporated and they drafted the mandate. It was actually Balfour who drafted the preamble of the mandate recognizing the rights. The bad. Decision to partition Palestine and Cairo. They didn't have any right to do that. They were just supposed to be the servants of the League and then they do their own thing and partition Palestine. Not a good decision for the Jewish people. Then they approved the mandate in 1922 with a new Article 25 with a dilution of the rights of the Jewish people. And then they have their plan to partition approved in September of 1922. Then the Churchill White Paper of 1922 introduces a restriction on immigration which was not in the mandate. In the mandate there was carte blanche for immigration. Here Churchill introduces the concept that immigration should not exceed the economic capacity to absorb new arrivals. And the administrators of the mandate in Palestine took advantage of that to prevent Jews from immigrating from the very beginning of the mandate. And the failure of the Jewish people to, of the British to protect the Jews of Palestine. The military contingents and troops were reduced to the point where the Arabs could attack the Jewish communities with impunity without restraint. The ugly. Passfield White Paper of 1930 which further reduces the rights of the Jews. The Peel Partition Plan of 1937. That was a concoction of the British again. They appointed the Commission and all of a sudden they're coming up with this idea that what's left of Palestine after giving two-thirds away in 1921 and 1922. What's left should be further partitioned. The White Paper we've talked about it. Abominable decision of the British government. They continued to keep the restrictions of the White Paper during the Warriors 1939 to 1944. Somewhere between 50 and 70,000 Jews were able to escape Europe and go to Palestine illegally. They snuck in. But can you imagine the British preventing millions might have escaped and gone to Palestine? Millions. Instead they were murdered. Shameful, shameful conduct. And I must say that I'm still wrestling with the fact that the leader of that nation was Churchill during the Warriors. And many will say that Churchill was really a friend of the Jewish people. But how could he keep these restrictions in place? And of course we know the story of the exodus. Ship turned back. Filled with those who've gone through the atrocities. I will conclude with referring to the Green Line, which people they want to divide Jerusalem and the Holy Land that way. It's nothing other than the armistice line in 1949. And it was never to be the source of rights and obligations to the parties. Simply the line where they stopped fighting. Instead the nations are saying give back to the Palestinians. Everything on the other side of the Green Line. What do they mean by that for Jerusalem? If you do that, the entirety of the old city is part of the Palestinian Jerusalem. Here's what happens if you use the Green Line. The notion out there is that everything beyond the Green Line is Arab Jerusalem. It's not true. There are huge Jewish communities on the other side of the Green Line. The entirety of the old city is there. There's a humongous Jewish cemetery on the slopes coming down to the old city. Those who've been to Jerusalem, you've seen thousands and thousands of graves. That would be part of the Palestinian capital. Other resolutions have been passed, including a Security Council resolution in 2016. That's the one that Obama did not veto. Shameful conduct of that American president. Again, there's a reference to everything occupied since 1967 as being, including East Jerusalem being Palestinian territory. Nonsense from a perspective of international law. I was going to show you a few things about the conference in Jerusalem last year. The government of Israel decided to organize a conference to present my arguments. Can you imagine? It took 10 years and finally it was done. Here's one of the ministers, Al Kahn. They had the deputy leader of the foreign affairs department, Walter Valley. It was a very crucial moment after 10 years for the arguments to be sufficiently understood and embraced by the government of Israel that they organized the conference to present them. Voilà. Bottom line, the rights have been given. The arguments are well founded. The decisions have been made. Title regarding Jerusalem and international law belongs to Israel, the Jewish people. And the nations should no longer deny these rights. Thank you.