They all favored the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people
By Eli E. Hertz, MYTHS AND FACTS
Before the Zionist movement assumed concrete form, among the first to express approval of the return of the Jews to Palestine was John Adams, the second President of the United States (1797-1801) who wrote to Major Mordecai Manuel Noah, the first American Zionist, as follows:
“I really wish the Jews again in Judea, an independent nation; as I believe, the most enlightened men of it have participated in the amelioration of the philosophy of the ages; once restored to an independent government, and no longer persecuted, they would soon wear a way some of the asperities and peculiarities of their character. I wish your nation may be admitted to all the privileges of citizens in every part of the world. This country (America) has done much; I wish it may do more and annul every narrow idea in religion, government, and commerce.” (1819).
President Woodrow Wilson (the twenty-eighth President, 1913-1921) was the first American president to support modern Zionism and Britain’s efforts for the creation of a National Home for the Jewish people in Palestine (the text of the Balfour Declaration had been submitted to President Wilson and had been approved by him before its publication).
President Wilson expressed his deep belief in the eventuality of the creation of a Jewish State:
“I welcome an opportunity to express the satisfaction I have felt in the progress of the Zionist movement in the United States, and in the allied countries, since the declaration of Mr. Balfour” (August 31, 1918).
“I am persuaded that the Allied nations, with the fullest concurrence of our own government and people, are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundation of a Jewish Commonwealth.” (March 3, 1919).
President Warren G. Harding (the twenty-ninth President, 1921-1923) expressed support for a Jewish home in Palestine:
“It is impossible for one who has studied at all the service of the Hebrew people to avoid the faith that they will one day be restored to their historic national home and there enter on a new and yet greater phase of their contribution to the advance of humanity.” (June 1, 1921).
“I am very glad to express my approval and hearty sympathy for the effort of the Palestine Foundation fund in behalf of the restoration of Palestine as a homeland for the Jewish people. I have always viewed with an interest, witch I think is quite as much practical as sentimental, the proposal for the rehabilitation of Palestine and the restoration of a real Jewish nationality, and I hope the efforts now being carried on in this and other countries in this behalf may meet the fullest measure of success.” (May 11, 1922).
On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the “establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,” confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine – anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea:
“Favoring the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.
“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled . That the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which should prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected.” [italics in the original]
President Warren G. Harding signed the Lodge-Fish joint resolution of approval to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine (September 21, 1922). Writing to the Zionist Organization of America Harding stated:
“A long-time interest, both sentimental and practical, in the Zionist movement causes me to wish that I might meet the members of the organization and express the esteem which I feel in behalf of the great movement.” (June 25, 1922).
President Herbert Hoover (the thirty-first President, 1929-1933) stated:
“On the occasion of your celebration of the 15th Anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, which received the unanimous approval of both Houses of Congress by the adoption of the Lodge-Fish Resolution in 1922, I wish to express the hope that the ideal of the establishment of the National Jewish Home in Palestine, as embodied in that Declaration, will continue to prosper for the good of all the people inhabiting the Holy Land.” (October 29, 1932).
A Convention between the United States and Great Britain:
The U.S. (Not a member of the League of Nations) Government maintained that her participation in WWI and her contribution to the defeat of Germany and the defeat of her Allies, entitled the United States to be consulted as to the terms of the “Mandate for Palestine.”
The outcome of this request was a Convention [Treaty] between the United States of America and Great Britain with respect to the rights of the two governments and their nationals in Palestine. The Convention which contains the entire text of the “Mandate for Palestine” including the preamble –“word for word” was concluded and signed by their respective plenipotentiaries in London on December 3, 1924; Ratification advised by the Senate, February 20, 1925; Ratified by President Calvin Coolidge, March 2, 1925; Ratified by Great Britain, March 18, 1925; Ratifications exchanged at London, December 3, 1925; Proclaimed, December 5, 1925.
The United States of America upon ratifying the said Convention formally recognized the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.
Thanks, BK. I know all this. But it’s too late now. The train has long left the station.
To be clear: people can accept the necessity of Israeli military control of the WB ’til the final agreement, because of security. But not the settlements. The settlements are slowly pulling Israel into abyss imho.
@ 1DavidKA:
Read your history back to 1920 see San Remo Treaty. Palestine ~1% of the middle east was given for a Jewish Homeland. The “Palestinians” were actually the Jews back then. . The Arabs in the area are just like all the other Arabs in the area (same religion, language, culture, history). So the Arab country were ~80% of the population are “Palestinian Arabs” is Jordan but they are ruled by Hashemites (a branch of historical Saudi Royalty). Jordan is 2/3rds of Mandatory Palestinine which was granted to the Jews and stolen to give the Hashemites a country when the other branch of Saudi Royalty was granted the lands that make up Saudi Arabia. This in part how the middle east was split up after WWI.
Actually historically and legally Israel has a right to all of the Land of Israel.
It has offered several times even before the reestablishment of the state in 1948 to split the land because another people also live there. The UN partitioned it and Israel agreed and the Arabs went to war. Israel did not possess the West Bank or Gaza from 1948 until 1967 when the Arabs attacked again. Israel won the war and regained land it had a right to both for defense and historically plus on the basis of the San Remo treaty in 1920.The Arabs always rejected splitting the land.
The PLO charter of 1964, stated they want Israel proper not Gaza which they said was property of Egypt and the West Bank which was the property of Jordan. So there is great evidence that the Palestinians or Arabs want it all. The Arabs want it all because they consider Israel to be a Muslim land just like Spain and the Balkans. If they get the west bank they will try to capture the rest of Israel in spite of many people choosing or not caring to accept the obvious.
So the Jews of Israel do not have to accept being destroyed because there is an automatic Muslim voting block in the UN or other people take the sides of the Arabs. We do not need to accept our destruction because yet others are ignorant of the rights of Jews in the conflict or find it cool to side with the “Palestinians” in a popularity contest with their shallow understanding of the conflict.
The problem is that the modern world sees these declarations as less than ethical because the powers that be ignored Pals (the the modern world seems to have accepted Pal’s peoplehood/nationhood and the resulting inalienable rights to self-determination, including a state of their own in Palestine). So these early pre-partition documents mean little today.