Saturday, September 24, 2011

A 1937 Congressional Resolution

Earlier this month, Republican Congressman Joe Walsh introduced a resolution to recommend the extension of Israeli sovereignty to sections of Judea and Samaria, which I blogged.

This was not a unique involvement by an American elected representative.  Back in 1937, New York Senator Roger Copeland, Democrat, protested the British suggested partition as reported by the JTA on August 12, 1937:-

Copeland Introduces Senate Resolution Protesting Partition

This, after denouncing earlier reports in May, calling it 'impracticable'

Senator Royal S. Copeland, attacking reported plans to partition or cantonize Palestine, declared tonight that "its utter impracticability would be apparent even to the writer of the craziest fairy tales."...Recalling the United States-Great Britain treaty on Palestine, Mr. Copeland spoke of Americans' "national responsibilities" to support the Jewish homeland.

In his August remarks, he condemned the partition proposals of Palestine as "outrageous" and introduced a resolution asking for the Senate's "forthright indication of unwillingness to accept modification in the Mandate without Senate consent."  He was supported by Senator William H. King, (Dem. Utah) who condemned Partition by declaring that Britain was "dishonoring pledges and violating the Balfour Declaration" and that this was a "perfidious policy.  King, who visited Mandate Palestine in 1925, had sent a cable to the British Parliament protesting the "unjust and cruel measure" that was partition.  Interestingly, he said this action was warranted "by all Christians."  In 1939, he again sought Congress intervention to protect Jewish rights in Palestine.

Copeland was of the opinion that the territory allotted the Jews by the partition was insufficient to maintain even a small number of Jews.  The etablishment of a small Jewish state

might result in a war between the Jews and Arabs.

And most relevant to those concerned about legal issues, Copeland said Great Britain had not done its duty and pointed to

Article 7 of the British-American Treaty which stipulates that all changes in the Mandate must be approved by the United States....England was absolutely disregarding this country

The Senate should not sit idly by while

England made a scrap of paper of the treaty.

So, there has been a long history of action by members of Congress and the Senate championing the internationally legal rights of the Jewish people in and to its national home.

And we salute those continuing that tradition.

^

1 comment:

middleorient said...

Of particular note.

1) The fact there was at least some support for Jews' right to the land of Israel pre-holocaust.

2) Any dividing of the land was/is in strict contravention to the mandate and then the San Remo accords. It is simply illegal according to international law.

In fact, th U.N. did not have nor carries the authority now to divide the land.

Middle Eastern focused blog: http://middleorient.wordpress.com

My israel focused blog will go up soon.