By virtue of the principle of self-determination, this recognition logically gave the Jews the right to re-establish their sovereignty in their country after the destruction of the second kingdom of Judea and an exile of 19 centuries.

The text contained a reservation concerning the retention of acquired rights of non-Jewish communities. The territory devolved to the Jews in this document included western and eastern Palestine, including Jordan today. Very quickly the mandatory power, Great Britain, has endeavored to cut the rights of the Jews. In the first few months, it excluded the Jews from Transjordan to dispose of this territory in the management of its Arab policy.

Faced with the development poles of the country brought about by the arrival of the Jews in their ancient homeland, a considerable number of Arabs from neighboring countries flocked. They are the majority of the current « Palestinians ». In violation of the mandate of the League of Nations, the British gradually and drastically limited the access of the Jews to the country at the precise moment when the Jews tried to flee Nazism.

In 1946, they constituted the Jordanian State out of 3/5 of the mandatory Palestinian territory. As soon as the State of Israel was proclaimed, the armies of five Arab states tried to destroy it in the bud.

Against all odds, the army of Israel, just emerging from the underground, succeeded in containing the assailants. But it could not prevent the illegal occupation for nineteen years by Jordan of Judea and Samaria and the illegal occupation by Egypt of the region of Gaza.

When, in 1967, the Arab states tried again to liquidate Israel with considerable military means and unprecedented calls for murder, it was the Israel Defense Army that succeeded in freeing among others,  Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. If the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty put an end to the Israeli claims on Transjordan, nothing in subsequent agreements, and certainly not the Oslo accords of 1992, constitutes Israel’s renunciation of its rights over its historic cradle. Yet Israel scrupulously applies the provisions of the San Remo treaty and builds towns and villages only on state land and refrains from violating the acquired rights of members of non-Jewish communities. Many states, including democratic states, pretend, however, to believe that the Israeli presence in Judea and Samaria constitutes an « illegal occupation » of territories that would legally belong to Jordan or Egypt and would prohibit the construction of Israeli cities and villages in these areas. Worse, without any conventional or other legal basis, they often refer to these territories as « Palestinians » when there is and has never existed such a State. There is no better example of misuse of distorted legal concepts in favor of a policy of genuflection in the face of Arab blackmail, but as old and rooted as it seems to them to be a fact. The problem becomes even more complicated when one understands that an active minority and even within the Judiciary in Israel itself aligns with these positions. Often Arabs try to stop the Jewish constructions in Judea by reporting a posteriori, as in Amona, of questionable property titles, with European funding. Yet facts and principles of law are stubborn. It is the Arab refusal of Jewish sovereignty for 70 years that prevents an arrangement. Faced with rising perils in the Middle East and the Iranian and Islamic threats, the State of Israel has no reason or possibility of renouncing the minimum strategic depth conferred on it by the control of Judea and Samaria, which also belong to him by right. Christian and Muslim theologies each leave the Jews an unenviable place in their respective theological economies. That is why they both often believe that they are entitled to decide everything regarding the rights of the Jews. That’s why their discovery of the recovered Jewish sovereignty is for them lengthy and difficult. After the unacceptable votes at the UNESCO and the Security Council of the UN, Israel may not rely upon any international institution for the respect of its rights and may only act by relying on his right fairly interpreted, the rationality and its conscience.