Paul Luckraft reviews a selection of books on the making of modern Israel to round off our celebration of her 70^th anniversary.

‘The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law’ by Howard Grief (732pp, Mazo Publishers, 2008/2013)

This is a weighty treatise on Jewish sovereignty over the Land of Israel, written by a legally-trained Canadian Zionist as the culmination of 25 years of serious study and analysis of Israel’s legal foundation and rights under international law.

Although as a whole this will appeal more to readers with specialised knowledge or interest, there are nevertheless certain chapters which will benefit anyone with a heart to know more about the legality of various claims.
Taking the Balfour Declaration and the subsequent San Remo Resolution as the origins of the legal title and sovereignty, he goes on to look at the continuation of these matters upon the termination of the British Mandate and discusses why these origins have become obscured and forgotten. Grief’s section on the meaning of Palestinian nationality during the British Mandate period and the Arab appropriation of the name ‘Palestinians’ will be helpful to the general reader, as will his overall approach and conclusions.

Available on Amazon in e-book, paperback and hardback forms, starting from £13.10.

Trilogy on the history of Israel, by Leslie Stein

‘The Hope Fulfilled, The Rise of Modern Israel’ (300pp, Praeger, 2003)

‘The Making of Modern Israel, 1948-1967’ (412pp, Polity Press, 2009)

‘Israel Since the Six Day War’ (440pp, Polity Press, 2014)

The first volume in this trilogy effectively starts with the first Aliyah in 1882 and covers the origins of modern political Zionism. Stein then works his way through the second Aliyah (1904-1914), the First World War and the Balfour Declaration and the early years of British Rule in Palestine (1917-1930). The difficult years from 1930 onwards leads us towards World War 2 and the post-war struggle for independence.

The second volume, as its title suggests, tackles the important two decades from independence to the Six Day War and its aftermath. Although some of this is extremely well known, other parts of this period are often overlooked. Stein does us great service by providing a continual commentary through these years, for instance focussing on the Sinai campaign and interlude between this and the Six Day War.

The third volume looks at the aftermath of the Six Day War and the prelude to the Yom Kippur War, and then brings us up to date through the 1980s and 1990s, culminating in the al-Aqsa (second) Intifada (2000). Overall, it is as a set of three volumes that Stein’s work is to be most appreciated, and would sit well on the shelves next to other writings on these themes.

Available on Amazon: here, here and here respectively, starting at £11.39.

‘A History of Israel: from the Rise of Zionism to Our Time’ by Howard Sachar, (887pp, Knopf, 1979/2007)

The late Howard Sachar, Professor Emeritus of History and International Affairs at the George Washington University in Washington, DC, has written many books on the Middle East and Jewish history, but this one is regarded as definitive.

Its full, single-volume account of the Jewish movement towards statehood and the period since was updated significantly in 2007, extending its comprehensive study up to the 2006 Lebanon war. This is a classic that is both readable and informative in its analysis.

Available on Amazon in paperback, hardback and Kindle forms, starting at £23.08.

‘Churchill’s Promised Land: Zionism and Statecraft’ by Michael Makovsky (368pp, Yale University Press, 2007)

For anyone with an interest in Churchill in general and his relationship with Zionism in particular, Makovsky’s book is a well-constructed and balanced study that will enable the reader to gain a clearer perspective of the role of this key figure at a vital time in the history of the Middle East.

Churchill’s political and intellectual response to the Zionist project is a complex one, and Makovsky manages to explore this in an honest and approachable way which will shed light on the man, his beliefs and the practicalities of politics.

Available on Amazon in paperback, hardback and Kindle forms, starting at £10.

Paul Luckraft reviews ‘Whose Land? Pt 1: Foundations’ (DVD, Title Deed Media, 2017).

This is the first of a two-part documentary looking at the legitimacy of Israel under international law. A wide range of highly qualified historians and international lawyers provide much of the information while presenter Colonel Richard Kemp anchors the whole presentation in a clear and skilful manner.

The aim of the production is simple: to tell the truth. With so much misinformation being spread around, either through fake history or deliberate misrepresentation of the current legal situation, simply telling the truth is the best weapon to counter the propaganda war being waged against Israel today.

How Lies Become Truth

In the dramatic opening we are shown several examples from the Palestinian media, proclaiming their rights to the land and their desire to destroy the Jews, who are portrayed as evil occupiers and usurpers.

Most striking is the clear indoctrination of children as part of this cause. The tactic is that if a lie is repeated often enough it will be believed without question and become a standard part of the education of the next generation. This belief that the Jewish people have no right to the land and are illegal occupiers is not only widespread throughout the Muslim world but, more alarmingly, is also finding a foothold in the West.

So what is the truth? The documentary starts by countering the claim that the Jews were never in the land in the first place, and that there was no Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. This is easily done, as many sources confirm a Jewish presence in the land from antiquity.

Simply telling the truth is the best weapon to counter the propaganda war being waged against Israel today.

It then goes on to demonstrate that a Palestinian claim to any part of the land has no historical validity, and phrases such as ‘occupied Palestinian territory’ and ‘illegal occupation’ have no basis at all. They are all part of a bogus set-up. Verifiable history is the key to meeting such claims, and this is well-presented in sufficient detail without becoming bogged down or over-repetitive.

Charting Historical Progression

The 12 chapters vary in length from 3 to 13 minutes but it is possible to view it all in one sitting, as the film runs continuously through without annoying breaks for the chapter divisions (though it is well worth having the DVD case to hand to see the chapter titles).

The film takes us through the Ottoman Empire and its rule over Palestine, and then charts the historical progress from Turkish rule through to the Balfour Declaration. Some overlap would be expected with other DVDs and similar material on this topic - and inevitably there are some similarities - but there is much here that is new and more detailed. The whole emphasis is distinct: that of exploring the role of international law, hence chapters on the Paris peace conference, the League of Nations, the San Remo conference, and, of course, much on the British Mandate itself.

Special mention is made of the role of Churchill, which provides fascinating details into the political scene in Britain at that time. There is a chapter devoted to the 1939 White Paper and its tragic consequences, and another on the formation of the United Nations as it took over from the League of Nations, and the new charter that came into being as a result.

Britain’s betrayal of their Mandate responsibilities is documented clearly but always through the main lens of international law and how it should have been implemented.

The whole emphasis of this DVD is distinct: that of exploring the position of Israel within international law.

Being Clear About the Facts

The whole film is very informative, with new things to learn for everyone. It will also provide a vital revelation for those who rely on the usual media outlets.

We all need to be clear in our understanding of what is often a deliberately confused situation. With the 70^th anniversary of the establishment of the State of Israel coming up next May we need to be prepared: to know what is binding in international law to this day and how to counter false views. This DVD is an excellent resource to that end and is highly commended.

The DVD also contains two previews, one of six minutes and another of ten minutes. It is not clear why two are necessary, but the longer one seems to contain things which will come up in Part 2 and so acts as a trailer for the whole. Included in the second DVD will be the wars against which Israel has had to defend itself since independence and the campaign to denounce and delegitimise the Jewish State. Part 2 (to be released in 2018) is eagerly awaited!

‘Whose Land? Part 1: Foundations’ (94 minutes, produced and directed by Hugh Kitson) is available from the publishers for £15 + P&P. Click here to visit the official website.

With input from experts in the legal profession, Clifford Hill reflects upon some of the judicial issues involved in the Referendum debate.

The British justice system is incompatible with the system of justice operated by the European Court. That is the verdict of senior lawyers in Britain who have first-hand experience of dealing with the European Union. Problems arise from the fundamentally different traditions of law between Britain and continental nations.

British legal tradition is based upon biblical principles. Above the state entrance to the Old Bailey, Britain's Central Criminal Court, are inscribed the words:

"Defend the children of the poor. Punish the wrong doer".

These words are based upon Psalm 82:3 which says, "Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed".

Common Law Tradition

The British traditions of law, based upon the Common Law of England¹ (going back to the days of Magna Carta), are rooted in the Bible. Justice is considered on a case-by-case basis rather than in conformity to some abstract concept of law.

English Common Law is an unwritten law which has been evolving for many centuries. It reflects the common customs of the kingdom and is based upon reference to previous judgments. Precedents are formed as the number of judgments increase on a particular issue and these become guidelines for judges in deciding similar cases.

Changes in society sometimes trigger new issues in law. Common law judges are free to depart from precedent to establish a fresh judgment, thus setting a new precedent. This demonstrates the dynamic character of Common Law which is always changing in order to be relevant in a changing society.

English Common Law is unwritten, dynamic and flexible - relevant to a changing society - and has developed along biblical lines.

European Civil Law

In contrast to British Common Law, European Civil Law is a system based upon ancient Roman law in which judges resolve cases by referring to established principles. The Emperor Justinian in the sixth century AD formed a collection of ancient pagan Roman law.²

The Napoleonic Code in the Historical Museum of the Palatinate, Speyer. See Photo Credits.This became the basis of the 'Code of Justinian', which in mediaeval times quickly spread throughout the countries which now form the western part of the European Union. Local statutes and customs were codified in order to form a harmonised body of law throughout the continent. Historically only England remained apart from this until Britain joined the European Union.

Roman law had its origin in pagan and Imperial Rome and during the 18^th and 19^th centuries its codification was influenced by atheistic and humanistic ethics derived from revolutionary France. This system of Civil Law was adopted by most continental countries producing a strong measure of unification which was adopted by the European Union, replacing national differences in law with international practices.

Since the 18^th Century, political leaders in Europe have regarded legal codes as necessary instruments for establishing national unity and enforcing central authority. Napoleon's objective in the 'Napoleonic Code' was to secure his conquests and this code became the basis of the legal systems of some of the founding members of the European Union such as the Netherlands and Belgium.³

By contrast, European Civil Law is based on established principles and codes collected over the centuries and influenced by both pagan and atheistic societies.

Comparing Civil Law and Common Law

There are fundamental philosophical differences between these two systems of law.⁴ For example, the 'Law of Evidence' which is an integral part of Common Law has no counterpart in the Civil Law practised in the European Union because there is no such thing as 'inadmissible evidence' in continental Europe.

Most continental countries separate their administrative courts, from those that deal with criminal cases and private law disputes. Under Common Law all kinds of disputes are determined in the same courts, in order to apply the same rules of fairness and justice.

In England a fast growing area of law is 'judicial review' which, on a daily basis, challenges the actions of politicians and quangos, thus holding our Government accountable to law.⁵ It is difficult to imagine this happening on the continent under the philosophy of Civil Law. Civil Law systems usually uphold all contractual promises and then enforce penalty clauses. In England Lord Denning in the post-World War II period pioneered a system of justice whereby contracting parties would be protected when the contractual terms are deemed to be unjust.

Another difference between Civil Law and Common Law systems is in terms of personnel. Under Common Law judges are drawn from barristers with many years of practical experience in dealing with justice whereas under Civil Law they are usually career bureaucrats serving the state. Trial by jury is an essential element in Common Law where it is the right of individuals to be tried by their peers. This is not often used in civil law on the continent where cases are decided by professional judges. In some continental countries laymen are used but not as jurors but as lay judges alongside professional judges.

There are fundamental differences between Common Law and Civil Law, which mean different attitudes to evidence, courts, jury and personnel.

What of the future?

The continental system of law adopted by the European Union is imperial and uniform and allows no differences for national law. The EU constantly sends out a stream of legal regulations which change our laws and bind our Parliament and our courts. Even our criminal law is not safe from EU interference and we are not able to deport convicted criminals to their countries of origin who appeal to the European court on grounds of the infringement of their human rights.⁶

In the article by Viscount Tonypandy that we published last week, he referred to the famous case of our Fisheries Act being declared illegal by the European court which overrode legislation passed by our elected Parliament. This effectively destroyed the livelihoods of our fishing fleets working in our own waters from Cornwall to Scotland.

It is the declared intention of the Commissioners of the European Union to move towards closer and binding integration. If Britain remains in the EU, our entire system of justice will be threatened. The threat is from two sources: from the mass of legislation that seeks not only to regulate but to standardise all the member nations of the European Union, and from the decisions of the European court which override national laws of member states.

In a federal Europe, towards which the EU is moving, the system of law that will be imposed upon us will be interpreted by judges who bind our judges by their decisions and there will be no room for our traditions of Common Law.

In a federal Europe, the system of law imposed upon us would leave no room for our Common Law traditions.

Our national heritage, based upon concepts of law drawn from the Bible, will be swept away by the European Union. We must ask ourselves whether it is more important to ensure that justice before God is shown to all people or whether we merely administer man-made laws.

On the 23 June 2016 we will be faced with a choice similar to that offered by Joshua to the people of Israel, whether or not to put our trust in God. He said "If you forsake the Lord and serve foreign gods, he will turn and bring disaster on you and make an end of you." He added the declaration: "But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord!" (Josh 24:20 and 24:15).

References

1 See Common law, Encyclopaedia Britannica.

2 Codex Justinianus, Wikipedia.

3 See The Napoleonic Code, Encyclopaedia Britannica.

4 For differences other than those mentioned here, a useful discussion can be found here: The Common Law and Civil Law Traditions, University of Berkeley, California.

5 See Judicial review in English law, Wikipedia.

6 EU laws 'prohibit UK from sending foreign criminals home'. BBC News, 7 June 2016.