The San Remo Conference commenced on 18 April 1920 at the Villa Devachan in the Italian Riviera town of San Remo. As previously mentioned, the San Remo Conference was an addendum to the 1919 Paris Peace Conference specifically to deal with the carve-up of the defeated Ottoman Empire.
The Legal and Spiritual Significance of San Remo
This little-known conference had far-reaching consequences for all the peoples of the Middle East and, not least, for the Jewish people who had been scattered across the world for two millennia. Yet, for many decades its records were buried deep in the British National Archives and, along with it, its significance for the Jewish nation.
Dr Jacques Gauthier, an international human rights lawyer, described this gathering of the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers at the Villa Devachan thus:
“It was in this place that the leaders with the power to make binding dispositions with respect to the Ottoman territories deliberated and made the decision, having heard claims from the Zionist Organisation in Paris in 1919 during the Paris Peace Conference [and] having heard submissions from the Arab delegation in respect to what they wanted in the Ottoman territories.
Having heard these submissions, a group of them gathered here and made final binding decisions in international law as to who would get what.”1
There is tremendous spiritual significance to this fact, as well as historic. The Hebrew Scriptures record that the Almighty God, whom Christians and Jews worship, gave the title deed to the land of Israel to the descendants Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as an everlasting possession some 4,000 years ago. What God did at San Remo was to enshrine that title deed into international law in the modern era.
And the Lord did this knowing that 100 years later, the very legitimacy of the Jewish state in their ancient homeland would be seriously challenged.
A Plot to Torpedo San Remo
As far back as 1920 there was opposition to a Jewish national home in Palestine—even within the British establishment. After the capture of Jerusalem by General Sir Edmund Allenby in December 1917, a British military administration was installed to govern the conquered territory. Instead of sending administrators from England, most were moved up from Cairo. At that time the British Empire was ruling over many Muslim people, and the British Army had a key role in that. Many of the military personnel who had arrived in Jerusalem were ideologically opposed to the Balfour Declaration and its implementation.
In April 1920 a group of senior officers under General Bols, who was then the Military Governor of Jerusalem, inspired an Arab radical Islamist, Haj Amin Al-Husseini (later appointed as Grand Mufti of Jerusalem), to instigate a pogrom in the Old City. They created favourable conditions for him to do so. Their purpose was to torpedo the outcome of the San Remo Conference by showing that a Jewish national home in Palestine was both undesirable and unworkable.
The British Government reacted by disbanding the military administration and appointing Sir Herbert Samuel as High Commissioner of Palestine. While the military plot didn’t succeed, it did create a precedent that would haunt the rest of British governance over Palestine.
Before examining the San Remo Conference in more detail, we need to rewind and take a brief look at two previous policy decisions by President Woodrow Wilson of the United States that had a bearing on what happened at San Remo.
President Woodrow Wilson’s Vision of Self-Determination of Peoples
Prior to World War I, whenever a nation or an empire conquered another nation or empire, the victor generally annexed or colonised the territory of the vanquished country and subjugated its population. Quite simply, it was ‘the law of the jungle’. Israel’s ancient history is littered with such examples, both as victor and as vanquished. So is Great Britain’s, for better or for worse. The Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916, had it been implemented, would have seen most of the Ottoman territories annexed and/or colonised by Britain and France.
In principle President Woodrow Wilson supported the Balfour Declaration. This is reflected in two of the policies that were announced in the President’s ‘Fourteen Points’2 he made as a condition of the USA entering World War I on the side of the Allies. One of the policies included in the ‘Fourteen Points’ was that the age of imperialism would come to an end, and the world powers strive towards the self-determination of all peoples. As he believed that the Jewish people should have the right of self-determination too, he gave the green light to the Balfour Declaration.
Another policy was that a ‘League of Nations’ would be formed in order to protect the independence of all countries, no matter how big or small, and to ensure that a war like the ‘Great War’ should never happen again.
The Covenant of the League of Nations
The League of Nations was established at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, at the instigation of the Supreme Council of the Allied and Associated Powers. Article 20 of the Covenant of the League of Nations stated that all ‘secret agreements’ between nations—e.g. the Sykes-Picot agreement—were to be abrogated. Article 22 dealt with the setting up of a series of Mandates, for those peoples who were released from the grip of being ruled by an imperial power during World War I.
These peoples (including the Arabs in the former Ottoman Empire) were to be assisted in achieving self-determination until such time as they were ready for self-government and independence. Mandates were also set up for a number of former colonies in Africa and Latin America. The Mandates, wherever they were, were to be regarded as a ‘sacred trust of civilisation’.
International lawyer Professor Avi Bell says: “What the whole institution of Mandates was about was a way of guaranteeing self-determination of peoples. It was really the first time that international law created and recognised this right.”3
Today the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state is violently challenged. The accusation that Israel is ‘an illegal colonialist racist enterprise’ is the common chant of the anti-Zionists. Recorded history shows us that the opposite is true.
The San Remo Conference Establishes Mandates in the former Ottoman Empire
The San Remo Conference initially had three Mandates to consider: Syria and Mesopotamia for Arab self-determination, and Palestine. The Mandate for Palestine was unique in that the vast majority of the population for whom self-determination was intended—namely the Jewish people—were actually living outside the area of Palestine at that time because most had been expelled from there by the Romans nearly 19 centuries earlier.
When considering the Balfour Declaration of 1917, the minutes of the conference recorded that it “had been accepted by the Allied Powers, that Palestine was in future to be the National Home of the Jews throughout the world.”4
Dr Jacques Gauthier summarised the decisions in this way: “It was the Jewish people that were chosen to be the beneficiaries of a Trust—a Mandate—under the care of the British Government in respect to Palestine. It was the Arab inhabitants of the territories of Mesopotamia—Iraq now—Syria and Lebanon that were chosen to be the beneficiaries of a trust, or a mandate, part of it under the trusteeship…of the French (Syria and Lebanon), part of it under British supervision (Mesopotamia).”5
The Scope of the Jewish National Home
The Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers—made up of Great Britain, France, Italy (in the Chair) and Japan, with the USA observing—also discussed the territorial scope of the Jewish national home. The leader of the British delegation was Prime Minister David Lloyd George, who was influenced by his Baptist upbringing and knowledge of the Bible. Using maps prepared by George Adam Smith, he proposed that the reconstituted Jewish homeland should encompass the area that Israel resided in during the historic reigns of King David and King Solomon—‘from Dan to Beersheba’.
Referring to this fact, international lawyer Dr Cynthia Day Wallace states that: “In formulating legally binding instruments there was a recognition of the cultural historic roots of the Jewish people in that land.”5 Of course, this recognition most definitely included the historic Jewish heartland of Judea and Samaria that today is commonly known as ‘the West Bank’—and within that included the historic Jewish capital, Jerusalem. So, the intention of the Supreme Council was clear.
A Jewish State in Palestine, not just ‘a National Home’
A few weeks after the San Remo Resolution. the first High Commissioner, Sir Herbert Samuel, arrived in Jerusalem. He bore with him a declaration by King George V in three languages—English, Hebrew and Arabic—which he read out to representatives of the population of Palestine at Government House in Jerusalem. The king concluded his declaration with these words: “I shall watch with deep interest and warm sympathy the future development and progress of a State whose history has been of such tremendous import to the world.”
However, the San Remo Resolution had not finalised the actual boundaries between the various Mandates. These were to be set by the Principal Allied Powers and submitted to the Council of the League of Nations. The San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920, which had the status of an international treaty, received the unanimous endorsement of all the founding nations of the League of Nations.
References:
1 All quotes from interview segments in the documentary “Whose Land?”—Part 1 ‘Foundations’.
2 The ‘Fourteen Points’ was a statement of principles by President Woodrow Wilson to the US Congress on 8 January 1918 on aims and peace terms to be implemented at the conclusion of the war.
3 See reference 1.
4 Access a full copy of the minutes: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Minutes_of_the_1920_Conference_of_San_Remo.pdf
5 See reference 1.
6 See reference 1.
0 Comments