10. A Covenant of Peace

In the Quran, Muslims are encouraged to take the initiative to invite the People of the Book to establish a relationship on the common ground of faith in God. “Say, ‘O People of the Book! Come to a word common between us and you, that we shall worship none but God, shall not associate aught with Him, and shall not take one another as lords apart from God.’ And if they turn away, then say, ‘Bear witness that we are submitters.’”¹

The “submitters” for whom Muhammad is their Prophet and the Quran is their book are to seek to establish a written agreement of peace with the Peoples of the Book. In 622 C.E., Muhammad fled from Mekka to Medina, a city which had been founded by Jews, and later became the holiest city in Islam after Mekka. There he instituted the Constitution of Medina, making “a treaty and covenant with the Jews, establishing them in their religion and possessions, and assigning to them rights and duties.”²

The Constitution stipulated that “The Jews shall maintain their own religion and the Muslims theirs. Loyalty is a protection against treachery.”³ It said, “Between them [Muslims and Jews] there is help (nasr) against whoever wars against the people of this document. Between them is sincere friendship (nas’h wa-nasiha) and honorable dealing, not treachery. A man is not guilty of treachery through [the act of] his confederate. There is help for the person wronged.”⁴

The written agreement included a mutual defense pact, a public commitment to honesty with one another, and “sincere friendship” as the governing attitude towards each other. This established within the city what later agreements accomplished outside the Arabian Peninsula. Having been instituted by Muhammad, it became a model for later agreements. These later agreements established “the ‘Abode of Treaty’ or the ‘Abode of Safety’ (dar al-sulh or dar al-amn), referring to lands with whom a treaty or pact existed”.⁵

An Islamic government can, and in certain circumstances should, seek such an agreement. In some cases, the payment of a poll-tax sanctified such treaties by making God a party to it. Whoever then violates the agreement is rebelling against what God has ordained. That applies just as much to a Muslim government or people as to a non-Muslim government or people. This publicly raises the level of obligation and the level of consequences for breach of contract by either side.

“Truly those who pledge allegiance unto thee pledge allegiance only unto God. The Hand of God is over their hands. And whosoever reneges, reneges only to his detriment. And whosoever fulfills what He has pledged unto God, He will grant him a great reward.”⁶

The poll-tax does not need to be called the tribute of jizya, it can be called the charitable gift of sadaqah. It does not even need to be financial; it can be the commitment to mutual defense. And it can function as a recognition of distinct but cooperative authorities within the relationship.

Those who follow the teachings of Muhammad should, of course follow his example also. “The people of Quba’ fought with each other till they threw stones on each other. When Allah’s Messenger was informed about it, he said, ‘Let us go to bring about a reconciliation between them.’”⁷

Neither a written agreement, treaty, or covenant guarantees that the parties involved will do what they have promised. That is determined by the prioritization of values within their hearts, how strongly they desire to serve God. We looked briefly at some powerful political leaders during World War II, and how little priority each placed upon keeping promises.

Here are a few verses from the Hebrew Scriptures which also illustrate the point. David said of a false friend: “He has put forth his hands against those who are at peace with him; he has broken his covenant. The words of his mouth were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart. His words were softer than oil, yet they were drawn swords.”⁸

Daniel prophesied about the time of the end: “And both these kings’ hearts will be bent on mischief, and they will speak lies at the same table. But it will not succeed, for the end is yet to be at the time appointed.”⁹

Obadiah prophesied about Edom: “All the men of your confederacy have driven you to the border; the men who were at peace with you have deceived you, and prevailed against you. Those who eat your bread have laid a trap under you; there is no understanding of it.”¹⁰

Sometimes, however, political leaders honor the agreements they have made. Sometimes people do what they have promised to do. Sometimes reconciliation is possible because people recognize authority and values over them.

Contractual Obligations

The making of contracts was an ancient, widespread practice for stipulating the terms of agreements between individuals. The Code of Hammurabi, for example, contains laws concerning contracts (and witnesses).¹¹ The Bible records the details of Abraham, at roughly the same time, agreeing before witnesses to purchase a field from Ephron the Hittite.¹² Earlier, Abraham had made a covenant with three brothers; it included what we would call a mutual defense treaty.¹³

In its simplest form, a contract is an agreement into which two parties freely enter, stipulating what each party will provide and what each party will receive. The Greek philosopher Epicurus (341–270 B.C.E.) was a positivist, not recognizing the pre-existence of any values or natural laws. He said “There never was such a thing as absolute justice, but only agreements made in mutual dealings among men in whatever places at various times providing against the infliction or suffering of harm.”¹⁴ For mutual benefit, and with complementary obligations, one individual bound himself to an agreement with another. Shared values and advantages, rather than law, determined the terms of the agreement.

Persons whose only reason for keeping an agreement is that it works to their advantage may choose to break the agreement when circumstances change and make keeping the agreement disadvantageous. But even in the days of Epicurus, there were people who believed in absolute justice and in the value of keeping their agreements regardless of changing circumstances. There were people who believed that what was Right and what was Wrong had already been determined before they appeared on the earth.

In one of his psalms, David asked and answered some eternally important questions: “Lord, who will abide in Your tent? Who will dwell in Your holy mountain? The one who walks uprightly, and does what is right, and speaks the truth in his heart. The one who does not slander with his tongue, nor does evil to his neighbor, nor takes up a reproach against his neighbor. In whose eyes a vile person is despised, but he honors those who fear the Lord. The one who swears to his own hurt, and does not change. The one who does not put out his money at interest nor take a bribe against the innocent. The one who does these things will never be shaken.”¹⁵

Such contracts as Epicurus mentioned had terms that specified time, place, service, and goods. These terms were expressed in language understood by the contracting parties. They expressed every reciprocal obligation and the values on which they were based. But the determining factor in keeping an agreement is the recognition of the existence of a superior obligation to keep the agreement. Why should a person do what she or he has promised to do? Among other reasons, perhaps the obligation to do so has been imposed by a superior power.

Underlying such agreements was the conviction of the existence of a law of Nature, expressed in Latin as pacta sunt servanda. This Latin phrase, understood by some to be the foundation of international law, means “an agreement is to be obeyed.” When one voluntarily enters into an agreement, there is an obligation to abide by it. In other words, there is an assumption of good faith, i.e. the belief that each party, to the best of its knowledge and ability, is presenting a factually truthful account, intending to do what he, she, or they have promised. Being factually truthful is a prerequisite for anyone who intends to abide by the agreement.

Initially, contracts did not involve government. “Furthermore, virtually none of the law that orders our interpersonal relationships was produced by the intentional actions of central governments. Our commercial law arose almost entirely from the Law Merchant, a non-governmental set of rules and procedures developed by merchants to quickly and peacefully resolve disputes and facilitate commercial relations. Property, tort, and criminal law are all the products of common law processes by which rules of behavior evolve out of and are informed by the particular circumstances of actual human controversies. In fact, a careful study of Anglo-American legal history will demonstrate that almost all of the law which facilitates peaceful human interaction arose in this way.”¹⁶

Everywhere in the world, individuals entered into contracts with each other, without the government as a party, a guide, or an enforcer. At a certain point in time, governments began to regulate the terms of contracts and their enforcement. The concept of contract in relationships was then borrowed as a means of justifying government. It served as a metaphor for the relationship between a people and their government, though no actual contract existed.

In the logic of Social Contract theory, the individual or, more correctly, the community of individuals is the source of state sovereignty. Before transferring the right of self-government to the State, an individual must first have had that right. One cannot give to another what one does not have.

In order for the individual to have that right, there must be a source of that right; an external authority which gave the individual that right and also gave the additional right to transfer that right to another. So the concept of the State being authorized by the people depends upon the existence of an individual’s natural right of self-government. It depends upon the existence of a pre-existing external authority which has a will and has willed for individuals to have the right of self-government.

At a different level, the same reasoning applies to nations. There are those who say that individual nations ought to obey the community of nations, because they belong to that community. But ultimately, nations, like individuals, are only accountable to the Authority which gave them rights and obligations. As with individuals, the fear of power will often dictate actions which override principles, but if the ultimate Authority has also given obligations, then nations, too, like individuals will give account.

As it is written in the Quran, “Unto God belongs whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is on the earth. And whether you disclose what is in your souls or hide it, God will bring you to account for it. He forgives whomsoever He will, and punishes whomsoever He will, and God is Powerful over all things.”¹⁷

In the Hebrew Scriptures, Abra[ha]m spoke of “God Most High, owner of heaven and earth… the Judge of all the earth…”¹⁸ Moses told Israel, “To the Lord your God belong the heavens, even the highest heavens, the earth and everything in it.”¹⁹

In another of his psalms, David said, “The earth is the Lord’s, and all that fills it; the world, and those who dwell in it. For He has founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the rivers. Who will ascend into the mountain of the Lord? Who will stand in His holy place? The one who has clean hands and a pure heart; who has not lifted up his soul to vanity, nor sworn deceitfully. This one will receive a blessing from the Lord, and righteousness from the God of his salvation.”²⁰

A natural right is a boundary established by God which no one is authorized to transgress. A natural obligation is a responsibility which God has given to every individual and which no one is able to evade or dismiss. God will call each one to account on the Day of Judgment. Admittedly, that means nothing to some people, but it does mean quite a lot to others. If God IS, then everyone will find out how much it means.

The Quran says, “Truly those who sell God’s Pact and their oaths for a paltry price, they shall have no share in the Hereafter and God will not speak to them, nor will He look at them on the Day of Resurrection, nor will He purify them. And theirs shall be a painful punishment.”²¹

A Federation

In 1947, the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine concluded that “A Federal State solution, therefore, which in the very nature of the case must emphasize unity and co-operation, will best serve the interests of peace…. The federal State is the most constructive and dynamic solution in that it eschews an attitude of resignation towards the question of the ability of Arabs and Jews to co-operate in their common interest, in favour of a realistic and dynamic attitude, namely, that under changed conditions the will to co-operate can be cultivated.”²²

UNSCOP was transparently correct in its conclusion, but unable to find or suggest the common ground which would cultivate the will to cooperate. Therefore the majority of the eleven members recommended dividing Palestine into two states — Jewish and Arab — though they recognized that irreconcilable political positions would bring continuing violence. Three members, however — Yugoslavia, India and Iran — continued to vote for the creation of one federation consisting of two states. The Australian delegate abstained from voting, considering the question beyond the authority of the Committee.²³

India and Yugoslavia were both composed of multiple ethnicities, religions, and languages. At that point in time, the nation of India had been independent for only two weeks. The subcontinent was one month away from the war, displacement, and devastation that followed the two-state solution imposed by the British through Partition.

Yugoslavia had become a nation in 1918 as “the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes,” following the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Two Balkan Wars preceded World War I, involving Serbia and Montenegro, Bulgaria, Greece, the Ottoman Empire, and, eventually, Romania. It resulted in hundreds of thousands of casualties and millions of refugees, as ethnically defined nations warred with each other over territory and identity.

“There were two substantial migration waves from the Balkans during the late Ottoman period predating the founding of the Turkish nation state. The first consisted of migrations that occurred during the Russian-Ottoman War of 1877–1878, which marked the beginning of the dissolution of the Empire and caused more than a million Muslims to be uprooted (Kocacık and Yalçın 2008; McCarthy 1995); the second wave was during the Balkan Wars of 1912–1913, during which approximately 200,000 Turks died and another 440,000 migrated from Thrace and Macedonia in the aftermath of the wars until the Republic was founded (Eren 1993, pp. 292–293).”²⁴ Some of the Muslims who were forced to migrate ended up in Palestine.²⁵

The Balkan Wars initiated the fall of many political dominoes. It gave more power to those who were committed to a “Greater Serbia” — a state completely independent of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, with territory defined by a 14th century Serbian Empire.²⁶ They wanted to control all territory where Serbs lived. This was similar to Hitler’s 1938 pursuit of a “Greater Germany,” leading him to claim part of Czechoslovakia, the Sudetenland, because many Germans lived there.

The search for a “Greater (whatever country)” is often a search to re-establish the past glory of a people or an empire. Those who give their lives to such searches assume the legitimacy of their ideal past and seek to impose it upon the present. But they should remember that not all of the land they seek was always under the rule of their ancestors.

And every people should constrain itself in accordance with God’s warning to His special people: “For the vineyard of the Lord of forces is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah the plant of His delights. And He waited for judgment/mishpat, but behold bloodshed/mishpakh; for righteousness/tzedakah, but behold a cry/tza’akah. Woe to those who join house to house, who lay field to field, till there is no room, and you are made to dwell alone in the midst of the land!”²⁷

Some who were captivated by the “Greater Serbia” vision assassinated Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand (and his wife), the heir apparent to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The assassination took place on June 28, 1914 in Sarajevo, the largest city of neighboring Bosnia and Herzegovina. Some, to this day, regard the assassins as heroes, though their action intentionally was the spark of war which ignited the Balkans, a powder keg that brought on the First World War. Their action brought suffering and death to millions and millions of people.

That war also put an end to the Ottoman Empire, “the Sick Man of Europe”. The end of the Ottoman Empire caused more upheaval, more refugees, forced migrations, suffering, and death. The strong men of Europe, e.g. Britain, France, and Russia, were quick to take control, dividing many of the lands of the now dead empire amongst themselves. That is how Britain and France became major powers in the Middle East. That is what led to the “Mandate” of “Palestine”.

The UNSCOP report was presented two years after the end of the Second World War. Though sharing the Communist ideology of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia devoted considerable effort during and after the war to staying independent of the USSR. Composed of six republics, its people knew something about the difficult balancing act that federation entailed, and something about the danger of hostile neighbors.

Iran, the third country of the UNSCOP minority, had been forcibly occupied by the Soviet Union and the British Empire during World War II. The British left when the war ended, the Soviets stayed until March 1946. During that time after the war, the Soviet Union supported revolts against the government of Iran by the Kurds and by the Azerbaijanis, two of the minority population groups in the country. The Soviets departed after they received oil concessions from the government of Iran. So that government knew what to expect from the Great Powers, and it knew the ability of outside powers to stir up an internal minority.

Each of the three countries in the Minority had all had extremely negative experiences with the Great Powers, and ample reasons to doubt their benevolence. Though they each had historical experience with the difficulties there could be in a multicultural nation, they each also had historical experience with the difficulties of adjacent hostile states. They all three favored the formation of two regional governments within a single federation in the area that remained of the Palestinian Mandate after the creation of the state of Transjordan.

The Minority states were unwilling to abandon the advantages which they perceived would accompany a cooperative effort. A voluntary federation requires working together, even if it is rough going initially. The creation of separate states would do nothing to lessen the hostility and therefore nothing to bring about reconciliation. In other words, the creation of separate states would do nothing to achieve peace. To the contrary, it would institutionalize and empower the hostility that is war.

The three states in the minority gave their reasons for favoring a federation. The overarching reason was that, “The peoples of Palestine are entitled to recognition of their right to independence… The Arab state and the Jewish state shall enjoy full powers of local self-government, and may institute such representative forms of government, adopt such local constitutions and issue such local laws and regulations as they may deem desirable, subject only to the provisions of the federal constitution.”²⁸

Here are some of the particulars:

“4. The basic assumption underlying the views herein expressed is that the proposal of Other members of the Committee for a union under artificial arrangements designed to achieve essential economic and social unity after first creating political and geographical disunity by partition, is impracticable, unworkable, and could not possibly provide for two reasonably viable States….

“7. The objective of a federal-State solution would be to give the most feasible recognition to the nationalistic aspirations of both Arabs and Jews, and to merge them into a single loyalty and patriotism which would find expression in an independent Palestine….

“11. Future peace and order in Palestine and the Near East generally will be vitally affected by the nature of the solution decided upon for the Palestine question. In this regard, it is important to avoid an acceleration of the separatism which now characterizes the relations of Arabs and Jews in the Near East, and to avoid laying the foundations of a dangerous irredentism there, which would be the inevitable consequences of partition in whatever form. A Federal State solution, therefore, which in the very nature of the case must emphasize unity and co-operation, will best serve the interests of peace….

“13. A federal State would provide the greatest opportunity for ameliorating the present dangerous racial and religious divisions in the population, while permitting the development of a more normal social structure.”²⁹

“Irredentism” is a “territorial claim based on a national, ethnic, or historical basis. The term irredentism is derived from the Italian word irredento (‘unredeemed). It originally referred to an Italian political movement during the late 1800s and early 1900s that sought to detach predominantly Italian-speaking areas from Switzerland and the Austro-Hungarian Empire and incorporate these territories into the new Italian state, thus “redeeming” these territories.”³⁰ As the UNSCOP Minority predicted, “a dangerous irredentism… would be the inevitable consequences of partition in whatever form.”

The Charter of the League of Arab States points out that, “The Treaty of Lausanne [1923] proclaimed that her fate should be decided by the parties concerned in Palestine.”³¹ The content of that decision would be secondary, to be decided in negotiations, not imposed by foreign powers. The recognition of the right of the people themselves to decide on their own government was what was most important.

Throughout history, the greatest political obstacle to life, freedom, and peace in Israel and Palestine has been its occupation by foreign powers. Throughout most of the history of the land, foreign powers have ruled through unauthorized governments they controlled, imposing their will on the people. That is a primary problem, not a solution,

If all the people of the land, in expressing their natural right to self-government, want to ask the power brokers to assist in whatever solution they work out, that is their prerogative. The Great Powers will never solve the problem on their own initiative, if only because they remain, as they have historicallly been, a major part of the problem. They naturally want to protect or strengthen their own position. Divide et impera, divide and conquer remains, though often in sophisticated forms, a standard policy.

The Australian abstention in the UNSCOP vote raised the issue of the limits of the authority of the Committee, an issue which was not of great interest to the members as a whole. Clearly, the Committee, which was advisory, could only have whatever authority it had been given by the new political organization that created it, the United Nations. The UN was created by the Great Powers to serve their own interests.

The Great Powers and their agencies, including the United Nations, do not have any authority in this situation. As a rule, Great Powers do not ask if they have the authority to do what they want to do; they authorize themselves. They only ask if they have the power to do what they want to do. If they have the power, who can stop them?

Political powers generally camouflage their actions with whatever sanctimonious slogans are currently popular, but almost always their actions are determined by their own interests. In other words, Great Powers seek to impose their will on lesser powers, a simple form of imperialism.

As Bakunin reminded us, “Sensible persons, all those who have had some political experience, do not even take the trouble of reading such manifestos. On the contrary, they seek ways to uncover the interests driving both adversaries…”³² No one with any real knowledge of political history would expect the Great Powers to be impartial or just.

If people have the right and obligation of self-government, then all actions which interfere with the carrying out of that right and obligation are illegitimate, even if they are legal. It doesn’t matter what pretentious claims and presumptuous assertions are made, whether by internal or external powers. No human agency has the authority to dehumanize the people whose right and obligation it is to rule themselves.

In the conflict between Palestine and Israel, there is an ultimate basis for the major claims on each side. They are presented as flowing from the different Holy Scriptures, all of which speak of the God of Abraham as the almighty owner and judge of all. Of course, many people do not fear God, but that is not to their credit. The Hebrew Scriptures remind us, “Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.”³³

With the end of World War I and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, the new conquerors had to figure out what to do with the conquered territories. British Prime Minister David Lloyd George wrote of how difficult that was. ‘In some respects the settlement of the Turkish Empire presented greater difficulties than that of any other enemy country. There was a greater variety of races and religions to be dealt with. They were more hopelessly intermingled without any trace or hope of merger. There were historical complications which had never been unraveled. There were the jealousies of Powers, each of them with real or imaginary interests — historical, religious, financial or territorial — in some corner of this dilapidated Empire. There was a wilderness of decay and ruin.’”³⁴

But some remarkable things have happened in that wilderness. And much more can happen if the Palestinian and Israeli peoples join together in covenant with each other and with the God of Abraham. There is a need for leaders who recognize that they are only authorized to assist the people in self-government. In a messianic passage in the Hebrew scriptures, the Lord promises that “They will build the old ruins, they will raise up the former desolations, and they will repair the ruined cities, the desolations of many generations.”³⁵

‘Is that likely to happen in our day?’ To some extent it already has happened. ‘But,’ you say, ‘for everything that has been built, something else has been destroyed.’ Sometimes a courageous leader arises who is willing to break with the futility of the past. Sometimes the past can contain a fruitful seed for the future.

Isaiah, one of the prophets that God gave to Israel in the Holy Land, spoke of a future time when God would create a federation. “In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian shall come to Egypt, and the Egyptian to Assyria, and the Egyptians will worship with the Assyrians. In that day Israel will be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the land; whom the Lord of forces will bless, saying, ‘Blessed be Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance.’”³⁶

In seeking peace with the Quraish infidels, Muhammad said, ”By the Name of Him in Whose Hands my soul is, if they ask me anything which will respect the ordinances of Allah, I will grant it to them.”³⁷ This was Muhammad’s response to unbelievers; he wanted to establish peace with them. If what they asked could be granted without disrespecting the ordinances of Allah, then he was willing to agree. That would therefore necessarily be true of those who genuinely seek to live as he lived.

A federation is something that those involved must make a conscious effort to seek to build. In this situation, it is a living option. The only other way to peace would seem to be the annihilation of one side or the other, and then the victors could war with one another over what remains.

There might be value in agreeing to set up an Advisory Council composed of people from different nations who have life experience with the cost of failure in multi-cultural societies; who know something about what does not work. Perhaps some could come from India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh; from Kenya and Somalia; the Czech Republic and Slovakia; from the people-groups in Rwanda and in Bosnia; the different component communities of Lebanon, etc. The Council would have no authority and need not be composed of government officials, but rather of respected individuals who would want the federation to succeed. They might also want that success to produce something which would be of value in their own countries as well.

This is not the normal way that things are done, but the normal way does not work. It will not work. The political way has no adhesive other than force to hold things together. The Holy Scriptures point to something else. “Who is better in religion than the one who submits his face to God, and is virtuous, and follows the creed of Abraham as a hanif? And God did take Abraham for a friend.” ³⁸ In Quran we are told there is nothing better than that. And Solomon in his wisdom said, “When a man’s ways please the Lord, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him.”³⁹

The Minority UNSCOP recommendation was that there be two self-governing regions in Palestine — one having an Arab majority, and one having a Jewish majority — joined together in an economic union. There would then be one Palestinian state federated with Israel. There could be three self-governing regions, or four.⁴⁰ Economic interests alone, however, will never be sufficient as a bond. The bond must come first; after a covenant before God.

The European Common Market was begun as a consensual economic union. It eventually led to some political union, but that came about as the economic union provided the opportunity to develop trust through cooperative work towards commonly chosen goals. In the Holy Land, economic benefits are not a high enough priority or goal to provide the necessary motivation.

In a federation, there are two levels of government. In each separate region there can be self-government which is not subjected to the federation. The second level, the federal government, only has the authority which the regions agree to give it. It serves as a means of promoting common interests. Consensus is the essential operational mechanism.

To assist in carrying that out, there can be a federal capital which is distinct from the capitals of the member states.

FOOTNOTES

1. Quran, The House of Imran/Al-Imran 3:64
2. Ibn Ishaq’s Record of the Constitution of Medina , http://www.rogerlouismartinez.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Constitution-of-Medina.pdf
3. Ibid.
4. “The Myth of a Militant Islam,” Dakake, Islam, Fundamentalism, and the Betrayal of Tradition:, p.21,22. Citing The Constitution of Medina, Watt, Humannad, p.22.
5. Caner K. Dagli, “Conquest and Conversion, War and Peace in the Quran,” The Study Quran. at 99038
6. Quran,Victory/al-Fath 48:10
7. Al-Bukhari, 1185. Chapter 10. The saying of the ruler to his companions, “Let us go to bring about a reconciliation (between people).” [3:858-O.B.] p.560
8. Psalm 55:21,22 Hebrew
9. Daniel 11:27
10. Obadiah 7
11. For example, Sec. 7: “If a man buy silver, gold, slave, male or female, ox, sheep, ass, or anything whatsoever from the son or slave of any person, without witness or contract, or receive the same on deposit, he is regarded as a thief, and shall be put to death.” Robert Francis Harper, The Code of Hammurabi, King of Babylon, 2d Edition, (Chicago: U. of Chicago Press, 1904)
12. “And the field of Ephron, which was in Machpelah, which was before Mamre, the field, and the cave which was in it, and all the trees that were in the field, that were in all the borders around, were made over to Abraham for a possession in the presence of the Hittites, before all who went in at the gate of his city.” Gen. 23:17-18
13. Genesis 14:13-24 In the Hebrew text, the three brothers — Mamre, Eshcol, and Aner — are baalei brit with Abraham. They were Amorites.
14. Epicurus, Principal Doctrines, #33,

http://www.epicurus.net/en/principal.html

15. Psalm 15
16. John Hasnas, “The Myth of the Rule of Law,” in Anarchy and the Law: The Political Economy of Choice, ed. by Edward p. Stringham, (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2007) pp. 186-187
17. Quran, The Cow/al-Barqarah 2:283
18. Genesis 14:22, 18:25
19. Deuteronomy 10:14
20. Psalm 24:1-5
21. Quran, The House of Imran/Al-Imran 3:77
22. UNSCOP Report, CHAPTER V, RECOMMENDATIONS (I), 11,13,14
23. Kirimova Nigar, The Status of Palestinian Refugees in International Law: The issue of interpretation and implementation of Article 1D of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees in Europe, Submitted to Central European University Department of Legal Studies, Budapest, Hungary, 2010, p.12. The eleven members chosen for UNSCOP were Sweden, the Netherlands, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, India, Iran, Guatemala, Peru, Uruguay, Australia, and Canada.
24. “The Changing Waves of Migration from the Balkans to Turkey: A Historical Account,” Ahmet İçduygu and Deniz Sert, in Migration in the Southern Balkans: From Ottoman Territory to Globalized Nation States, (New York: Springer, 2015) p. 88
25. “‘Bushnaqs’ — Palestinians whose ancestors hail from the territory of present-day Bosnia-Herzegovina…. the circumstances of the Bushnaqs’ departure in the late nineteenth century; the distinct community they founded in the village of Caesarea near Haifa and their assimilation into the Palestinian nation.” “The Herzegovinian Muslim Colony in Caearea, Palestine,” Darryl Li and Nina Sereovic, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 45, No. 1 (177) (Autumn 2015), pp. 69-92

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26378545?seq=1

26. The vision of a Greater Serbia was again a major factor in the wars that came with the dissolution of Yugoslavia in 1990.
27. Isaiah 5:7-8
28. UNSCOP Report, “I. The Independent State of Palestine,“ 1; “II. Outline of the structure and required provisions in the constitution of Palestine,” 26
29. UNSCOP Report, CHAPTER VII RECOMMENDATIONS (III) [minority plan]
30. “Irredentism,” Thomas Ambrosio, Encyclopedia Britannica

https://www.britannica.com/topic/irredentism

31. Charter of the League of Arab States, Annex on Palestine,

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/arableag.asp

32. Bakunin, The Immorality of the State, p. 9
33. Job/Iyov 28:28
34. David Lloyd George, Memoirs of the Peace Conference (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1939), pp. 649-50.

https://www.danielpipes.org/books/greaterchap.php

35. Isaiah 61:4
36. Isaiah 19:23-25
37. Al-Bukhari, [Book of Hadiths of the Prophet] The Book of Conditions, Chapter 4, 1192. The conditions of Jihad and peace treaties with (non-Muslim) warriors, and the writing of conditions. p.565
38. Quran, Women/al-Nisa 4:125
39. Proverbs 16:7
40. Israel, Gaza, and “the West Bank”. And possibly a fourth area in Lebanon with a Christian majority.