November 22, 2009                                        By Registered Mails and Fax


Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
United States Department of State
2201 C Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20520
U.S.A.

Re:  Your speech and statements: "U.S. Secretary of State meets with Egyptian President, claims settlements not legitimate  (UPI).   Advocating "Settlements are Illegal  and suggesting a "Two State Solution  to the Middle East conflict, are all violations of U.S. treaty obligations, and U.S. Constitutional Law.

Dear Madam Secretary Clinton:

Since taking office in January, the Obama Administration has placed great focus on achieving a just solution to the Arab-Israel conflict. Our organization, the Office for Israeli Constitutional Law and the people we represent, Jewish Americans in Israel, would like to express our appreciation for your sincere efforts to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israel and all her neighbors and inhabitants.

At the same time, we would like to express our concern that in pursuing these objectives, the United States is violating its signed agreements and treaties, and thus the oath of office, wherein you, as a Senator, and President Obama, swore to uphold the Constitution.

The current U.S. policy is leading the State of Israel farther and farther from the Jewish National Home as set forth under international law. Furthermore, it appears that you are in violation of the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924.

"Occupation  is a legal term used within International Law.  It’s used when an aggressor nation, such as when Iraq invaded Kuwait, forcing the rightful Government to flee.  What rightful Government did the Israel Defense Forces cause to flee?  Jordan? No- the United States and the world body refused to recognize Jordan’s illegal aggression in taking of the West Bank (Judea & Samaria).  The only Government to have legal title to Judea and Samaria under International Law is the Jewish National Home (Israel), granted under the Mandate for Palestine.

The British Government made a promise to the Jewish People in 1917, known as the Balfour Declaration. Thereafter, the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers of World War I agreed to "entrust the Mandate for Palestine  to "His Britannic Majesty  (Great Britain), as Mandatory, under the Mandates System, authorized in Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Jewish People were the sole beneficial recipients of both the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate for Palestine.

Thereafter, the United States of America ratified a treaty a with the British Government known as the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924, which included by reference the aforementioned Balfour Declaration and includes, verbatim, the full text of the Mandate for Palestine.

"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 2nd of 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…"

By doing so, the United States of America is legally bound to the principles contained in the "Balfour Declaration  and the "Mandate for Palestine."

More specifically:

Article 5 states: "The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign power."

Suggesting a two state solution within the Mandated borders of Palestine is "ceding  land and is a violation of the Treaty.

Article 6 states, in part: "The Administration of Palestine … shall facilitate Jewish immigration … close settlement by Jews on the land, including state lands and waste lands not required for public purposes."

Suggesting that settlements or Jewish housing anywhere within Mandated Palestine is illegal or must be stopped, is a violation of the treaty. 

In law we call these "rights,  and there is a fundamental principle in law that "where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy.  (Sir William Blackstone). 

Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution says, in part: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby..."

In 1783, the Treaty of Paris was the end of the American Revolutionary War, and the rights you enjoy as Americans today stand on this document. What keeps the English from canceling this treaty and giving the land to someone else is the principle of Estoppel. Once the rights are given, they simply can’t be taken back, and so it is with the Mandate for Palestine and the rights that the United States accepted, and committed itself to uphold in this 1924 treaty, ratified by the Senate, and proclaimed by President Calvin Coolidge on December 5th, 1925.

Article 7 (page 426) of the instant treaty states:

"Nothing contained in the present convention shall be affected by any modification which may be made in the terms of the Mandate, as recited above, unless such modification shall have been assented to by the United States."

Notwithstanding the fact that there were no provisions for "modification  within the primary purposes (creation of a viable Jewish State) of the Mandate for Palestine, thereafter, Britain violated this provision repeatedly. Not only did they make changes when none were permitted, but they failed to ask for the approval of the United States when making unauthorized changes. All of this was repeatedly called to the attention of the State Department and the full listing of these failures has been documented in the deliberations of the House of Representatives, Seventy-Eighth Congress, Second Session on House Resolutions 418 & 419, as printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Wherein we read:

"We desire to point out to the members of the House and to call to the attention of the State Department that Americans have invested over 100-million dollars in Palestine, relying upon the treaty between Great Britain and our Government, and upon which treaty they had a right to rely. It is the duty of the American Government to protect these rights by proper protest and to see to it that the treaty is carried out in good faith." (Bold type added for emphasis)

It appears that in eighty years, the situation has not changed.

The previous duplicity of the Executive and/or the United States State Department in failing to move Great Britain to adhere to the Mandate, or the failure of the United States itself to honor the commitments it made, does not release the current United States Administration from its obligations to the Jewish National Home or the Jewish People.

It is not too late to do the right thing. The time has come to honor the signed agreements and the commitments made by the United States and other countries to the Jewish People. The record of deliberations in the Joint Sessions of Congress, along with President Coolidge’s Proclamation, leave no doubt that all the problems were well known, discussed, deliberated upon, and solutions found. 

What has been sorely lacking in the United States is simply the political will to do the right thing. The situation is much like the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Bill, which has become a global joke, with Israel being the only country without the embassy in its capital city.   Jerusalem has never been the capital of any nation, other than Biblical Israel. Can you imagine the State of Israel telling the American Administration, "Sorry but we don’t accept Washington, D.C. as your Capital, and we are opening our Embassy in Pocatello Idaho?  Then, when China and North Korea follow Israel’s lead, how would the U.S. respond?  

The Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers following World War I, in the shadow of President Wilson’s Fourteen Point Plan, did something entirely new: Rather than dividing the spoils of war between the victorious Allies, they created, from the ashes of the Central Powers, what are today, in the Middle East and North Africa, thirty-one Arab/Islamic/Muslim nation states, one Christian state (Lebanon), and one Jewish state (Palestine). Then, as the United States and the world looked on, the British, in violation of Article 5, ripped away 78% of the Jewish National Home and called it Jordan. And now you want to make yet another Arab State from the 22% we have remaining? We say "No,  and if necessary, the courts will confirm this and more.

How much longer will the poor Arab refugees be left in squalor by UNRWA, before someone does the right thing and finds them new homes? How long must Jews be told they are unwanted or have no rights on the very lands they were promised and given rights to ninety years ago?

New plans, or new negotiations, are not necessary, because every problem has already been addressed and answered, discussed, and resolved, and is available, within the signed documents in our possession. We are here to assist you in understanding this treaty and the provisions of the Mandate for Palestine. We are available to answer your questions on every issue at any time that you need answers-by phone, fax, E-mail, or in person.

The Office for Israeli Constitutional Law (Justice Now!) is an Israeli non-profit (Amuta) legal action organization. We are requesting that you move immediately to cease activities that are in violation of your treaty obligations under the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924 (Exhibit "A"). We are requesting your immediate assistance in moving forward with the provisions of the treaty using the primary documents and where support is needed, the records of the Joint Sessions of Congress, etc. 

Our position as to members of the Israel Government and their acts relating to this issue: I would not want you to think that we are focused just on the U.S. role in subverting Justice as to the Mandate for Palestine.  Golda Meir and David Ben Gurion, Israel’s pioneer Prime Ministers were of course aware that the U.N. had recommended partition, in violation of the U.N. Charter. Nevertheless, to keep future Prime Ministers in line they put several laws on the books.  The 1948 Area of Jurisdiction Ordinance The Basic Law on Jerusalem and Section 97B of the Israeli penal code prohibits ceding any land. Our Amuta was in the process of opening a case against Yitzhak Rabin when he was assassinated.  Years later, we were preparing to file a case against Ariel Sharon when a stroke put him into a coma that continues to this day. As I write this letter, our Solicitor is reviewing the actions of Ehud Olmert who did not actually cede any land, but confessed to offering to do so, and this may be enough to have him charged.

What we want, and what we deserve, is justice, nothing more, nothing less. If there is no progress on this issue, we will be forced to use the legal option, which is a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court.

Thank you for your kind attention to the content of this letter.  We look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.

Respectively submitted,

Michael T. Snidecor, Ph.D.
Michael T. Snidecor, Ph.D., Chairman of the Board
Phone: +972-54-435-2805
Fax: +972-72-231-4778
E-mail:msnidecor@JusticeNow4israel.com

 
Attached Exhibits

Exhibit A: The Anglo American Treaty of 1924
Exhibit B:  Map of Mandate for Palestine
Exhibit C:  Lodge-Fish Resolution (Joint Congressional Resolution 360)
Exhibit D:  Deliberations of the House of Representatives, June 30, 1922 House Resolution 360 (Rept. NO. 1172)


Note: Jerusalem Attorney, Mr. Howard Grief has now completed his work: The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law (ISBN 978-965-7344-52-1)

*************************
Addenda

The Fourth Geneva Convention and the 1907 Hague Convention
Inasmuch as Israel is consistently condemned by the United Nations as an occupier of "Arab land  in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, this condemnation that has no basis in international law. In order for there to be an illegal occupation, the status and actions in the territory in question must fall under the criteria that define occupation according to the 1907 Hague Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.
In order to meet the criteria for occupation there must be:
1.        Sovereign territory belonging to one nation placed under the authority of another hostile nation
2.        A legitimate Government which was displaced.
3.        The Hostile Force set up its own government in place of the Government in exile.

The relevant paragraphs of Article 6 state:
In the territory of Parties to the conflict, the application of the present Convention shall cease on the general close of military operations.
In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: 1-12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, 143. (Bold type added for emphasis)
Article 42 of the Hague Regulations defines territory as being occupied when "territory of the Hostile State is actually placed under the authority of a Hostile Army."
Presumably, if this was relevant to Judea and Samaria, it would read:
When "Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is actually placed under the authority of the Israel Defense Forces."
It is a fact that the territory was placed "under the authority of the Israel Defense Forces (defined by the convention as "a hostile army"), but the territory never belonged to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (in order to legitimately be defined by the convention as "territory of the Hostile State"). Under international law, the only Nation to whom the territory was allotted was the Jewish National Home.
For more information about the applicability of the Hague and Geneva Conventions see:
The Question of the Applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention on Occupation to Judea, Samaria and Gaza, Part One by Howard Grief (Nativ, issue 124: Ariel Center for Policy Research,  Nov. 2008).
http://www.acpr.org.il/nativ/0811-4%20hgriefE1.pdf