Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, as a matter of fact and law.
As Eugene Rostow, a distinguished US legal scholar, who was the Dean of Yale Law School and an Under-Secretary of State explains, the 1920 San Remo Resolution, which was unanimously adopted by the League of Nations in 1922,reaffirmed that the sovereign right to the Land of Israel belonged to the Jewish people. The mandated territory, which was referred to as a “country” in the Resolution was, in effect, reserved to the Jewish people for their self-determination and political development, in acknowledgment of the historic connection of the Jewish people to the land. In essence, by protecting only the "civil and religious rights" of Arabs, it implicitly denied Arab claims to national political rights in the area in favor of the Jews.
Lord Curzon, who was then the British Foreign Minister, made this reading of the mandate explicit. Lest there be any doubt, Article 5 of the Council’s resolution provided 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”. In essence, the sovereign title to the country then referred to as Mandatory Palestine (now Israel) was granted to the Jewish people and could not be revoked or granted to another. Sovereignty over the land of Israel belonged to the Jewish people.
The San Remo Resolution was also a part of the Treaty of Sevres, with the Ottoman Empire and, in effect, ratified by the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923 with Turkey. It was also endorsed in the Anglo-American Treaty on Palestine, which actually incorporated the text of the Resolution as adopted by the Council of the League of Nations, referred to above.
Lord Curzon, British Foreign Secretary (1919-1924), was a key figure at the 1920 San Remo Conference. In statements, both at and after the Conference, including before the British Parliament, explicitly support the Jewish national home as a binding legal obligation, prioritizing Jewish political rights (e.g., nation-building) over Arab political claims in Palestine, which were relegated to civil and religious protections.
He noted that Arab independence was fulfilled elsewhere. This included Syria and Iraq and, ultimately, Jordan as well. This mirrors Rostow’s cogent legal position that San Remo decided competing claims in favor of Jews, with Palestine designated for Jewish sovereignty. The Mandate created a sacred trust for Jewish restoration.
The League of Nations Resolution of 1922 (adopting the 1920 San Remo Resolution) is an integral part of International law, legally preserved by Article 80 of the UN Charter and, therefore, binding on the UN and, by extension, its members.
Furthermore, the 1924 Anglo-American Treaty provides for a parallel UK obligation to the US and Jewish people. This is so notwithstanding that the British Mandate over Palestine was terminated. This is because the rights granted to the Jewish people survive, as confirmed by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted, it was and still is US Law that Jews have the right to settle in Judea and Samaria, including, without limitation, Jerusalem. This right was recognized by the President and is embodied in US law.
In this regard, it is also submitted that the UK may not promote a so-called Palestinian state that prohibits Jewish settlement in any part of the area of the original Mandate, which perforce includes Jerusalem. As an aside, the legal principle of uti possidetis juris vests the entire territory of Mandatory Palestine, west of the Jordan River, in the Jewish state of Israel, especially in light of Curzon’s express statement concerning the UK having a ‘binding legal obligation’.
The US recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moved its embassy there. Other countries have followed suit and some are contemplating a move, or like Argentina, have committed to do so.
Mahmoud Abbas, as a representative of the PLO, tried to challenge Israel’s right to Jerusalem in the French Courts and lost in 2013.
The misguided efforts of France and the UK to use their consulates in Jerusalem as, in effect, embassies to the Palestinian Authority (P.A.), which they now ostensibly recognize as the so-called State of Palestine is not only inappropriate, it is contrary to existing treaties and law.
The Oslo II Accord, signed in Washington D.C. on Sept. 28, 1995, and witnessed by then U.S. President Bill Clinton, among others, expressly prohibits establishing a consulate for the P.A. Article IX, Section 5a of the Oslo II Accord provides that the P.A. “… will not have powers and responsibilities in the sphere of foreign relations, which sphere includes the establishment abroad of embassies, consulates or other types of foreign missions and posts or permitting their establishment in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip, the appointment of or admission of diplomatic and consular staff, and the exercise of diplomatic functions.”
Why would France and the UK seek to induce a breach of Oslo II, the very basis of the two-state solution for which they so fervently advocate? Furthermore, it’s hard to imagine why anyone other than a dilettante would insist on positioning a consulate dedicated to serving the P.A. in the heart of Jerusalem, in what amounts to a foreign country?
Will these proto-embassy like consulates to the so-called State of Palestine serve only the non-Jewish residents that the P.A. governs in the areas of Judea and Samaria that it controls? There are approximately 200,000 French and upwards of 60,000 British citizens living in Israel, including the many living in Jerusalem and elsewhere in Judea and Samaria; are they to be disenfranchised? There are also 60,000 U.S. citizens and over 500,000 Israeli citizens who live in Judea and Samaria (plus hundreds of thousands more in Jerusalem), who are Jewish; would they too effectively be excluded?
Aside from this being invidious discrimination of the most sordid variety, why would France and the UK actually reward the P.A. for being judenrein - cleansed of Jews - even to the point that it imprisons Palestinian Arabs convicted of violating its noxious laws prohibiting the sale of land to a Jew? Is this Jim Crow-like paradigm their new policy of choice?
Consider, too, the anomalous character of this initiative. Do France or the UK have consulates in China-occupied Tibet serving Tibetans? Do either have consulates in Turkey serving only the Kurds? What about in China serving only the Uyghur Muslims?
This is understandable, given that Article 4 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations requires that the consent of the receiving state be obtained before any such consulate is established. Presumably, the above states either didn’t give such consent, or a request was never made, due to an anticipated negative reaction.
Why, then, the double standard when it comes to Israel? Isn’t Israel’s consent essential under the very same Vienna Convention? In this regard it should be noted that in 2024 the Israeli Knesset passed a law prohibiting opening new consulates in Jerusalem.
It’s indisputably U.S. law that undivided Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. This new attempt by ostensible allies of the U.S. and fellow NATO members to infringe on the sovereign status of Jerusalem as an integral part of Israel and thereby diminish its legitimacy is baffling. The reported insidious attempt to change the address of the French and UK Jerusalem consulates on the European Union website and elsewhere to ‘Palestine’ is another example of tone-deaf grandstanding.
France and the UK appear virtually immune to the egregious consequences that might ensue from catering to a terrorist constituency intent on destroying Israel. Reinforcing the dystopian delusions of Palestinian Arab terrorists only serves to promote their murderous Jew hatred; wasn’t one October 7th enough?
It is reported that the French consulate in Jerusalem has engaged with and supported the activities of individuals connected to terrorist organizations. Imagine, the horror of Palestinian Arab terrorists using a French or UK consulate in the heart of Jerusalem as a convenient safe-harbor or actually taking sanctuary there after committing a murderous terrorist act.
These machinations are not just frivolous; they’re dangerous. Having a consulate in Jerusalem to service a foreign non-state actor headquartered in Ramallah is wrong. Besides being an absurd and irresponsible way of making a point, it’s also violates international law and Oslo II.
Israel is the sole truly democratic state in the area, a loyal friend and vital strategic ally. Diminishing it or sending mixed signals serves no useful purpose; it only tarnishes the prestige of France and the UK and can cause enormous harm.
It’s time to end this unrealistic and dangerous ploy.
There is no genuinely rational or constructive reason to impinge on the legitimacy of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Indeed, as history has demonstrated in no uncertain terms, this kind of ambivalent policy only causes confusion and raises unrealistic expectations that serve to prevent, not enhance, the prospects for peace.
President Trump and his team, including Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, together with PM Netanyahu and his team, including Ron Dermer, have miraculously engineered an agreement to free all of the hostages with sign-on from a number of major Arab countries. Kudos as well to the valiant soldiers of the IDF, without whom there would not have been an agreement. There are reports that there are agreements in process, which, once the hostages are freed, will result in a significant expansion of the Abraham Accords.
President Macron and PM Starmer, please honor your obligations to the Jewish people and Israel and cease your irresponsible activities, including as noted above. It is critical that you not interfere with the good work being done by responsible parties.
As Numbers 24:9 assures, bless Israel and be blessed; the alternative is undesirable. Indeed, pray for the well-being of Jerusalem and may those who love you enjoy repose and be at peace (Psalms 122:6).
May the hostages be freed and returned to Israel before the end of the Sukkot holiday and may Israel, the US and Am Yisrael be blessed with a Gut Kvitel and a wonderful New Year.