Move the Embassy

Sign our Declaration For Truth In U.S.-Arab-Israel Policy

We say to the Obama Administration, "Stop pressuring Israel into a 'solution' which threatens its security and will not bring peace." We join with the US Congress to end the Presidential waiver on the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act and say, "Move the US Embassy to its rightful place in the eternal capital of Israel, Jerusalem!"

Israel’s Legal Right to the Land

Dr. Jacques P. Gauthier is a Canadian lawyer whose life's work has been devoted to a thesis proving the legitimacy of the Jewish claim to Jerusalem under international law. In his first ever presentation to a Christian audience, this thorough analysis of the Jewish people's legal claim to their capital was given at the ICEJ's Feast of Tabernacles celebration of 2010.


On April 25th, 1920 after WWI, the Supreme Council of Allied Powers met in San Remo, Italy to decide the future boundaries of the Middle East. Although none of the overall boundaries have been altered since then, many false arguments have arisen in opposition to these firmly established precedents.

The 1920 decision of the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers, Britain, France, Japan, Italy (with the US not present but in full agreement) is legally binding to this day.

Especially in light of the ongoing efforts to secure statehood by Fatah leadership, the 1920 San Remo Conference must be fully taken into account. The Palestinian Authority's end-run action at the UN was designed to avoid legal negotiations with the already sovereign State of Israel. San Remo-based International law stands firmly on the side of Israel and against any Palestinian Authority or UN declarations.

Israel's Legal Right To Judea, Samaria and All of Jerusalem
Based on International Law.

Component Parts of International Law:
1. Balfour Declaration
2. Paris Peace Accords
3. San Remo Resolution
4. League of Nations Covenant
5. British Mandate for Palestine

The Legal Case for Israel by Professor Eugene Kontorovich


Important Resources:

PDF of the actual minutes of the San Remo Peace Conference in Italy, April 24-25, 1920.

Eli E. Hertz has produced this overview, This Land is My Land (PDF).

Professor Howard Grief explains how UN Resolution 242 breaks international law laid down at San Remo, Italy. Click to download (PDF).

A May 14, 1920, newspaper reflecting the jubilance of Jews over the decision at San Remo.

Please visit the European Coalition for Israel website and share this link with your friends -

Long-time friend of UCI and Middle East Correspondent for CBN, Chris Mitchell, produced this video at the 90 year anniversary of the San Remo, Italy event.

Blue Line
Breaking News

Israel's Foreign Ministry chief: Sunni Arab nations are our 'allies'

Dore Gold discussed the perils of the Iran nuclear deal at an event in New York hosted by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, July 29, 2015.
(Conference of Presidents)

NEW YORK (JTA) – The director general of Israel’s Foreign Ministry, Dore Gold, called the Middle East’s Sunni Arab nations “Israel’s allies.”

Gold used the term twice in a presentation Wednesday in New York focused on the shortcomings of the Iran nuclear deal.

“What we have is a regime on a roll that is trying to conquer the Middle East,” Gold said of Iran, “and it’s not Israel talking, that is our Sunni Arab neighbors — and you know what? I’ll use another expression – that is our Sunni Arab allies talking.”

Gold, a former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations and a longtime adviser to Israeli prime ministers from the right-wing Likud Party, is also the author of a 2003 book on Saudi Arabia called “Hatred’s Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism.” Saudi Arabia has been one of the most vocal Arab opponents of U.S.-Iran rapprochement and the Iran nuclear agreement….

Read more

US to Sell TOW Missiles to Lebanon

The US State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to Lebanon for TOW 2A Missiles and associated equipment, parts and logistical support for an estimated cost of $245 million.

The Government of Lebanon has requested a possible sale of one thousand BGM-71E-4B-RF Tube-launched, Optically-tracked, Wireless-guided (TOW) 2A Anti-Armor Radio-Frequency missiles, five hundred BGM-71-H-1-RF TOW Bunker Buster Radio Frequency (RF) missiles, fifty M220A2 TOW launchers, containers, spare and repair parts, support equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor logistics and technical support services, and other related elements of program and logistics support.

The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) stated that this proposed sale will enhance the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a friendly country that has been and continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.

The proposed sale of TOW missiles will improve Lebanon’s capability to meet current and future threats and provide greater security for its critical infrastructure. Lebanon will use the enhanced capability to strengthen its homeland defense. Lebanon will have no difficulty absorbing these missiles into its armed forces.

The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region. The principal contractor will be The Raytheon Company in Andover, Massachusetts. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

Read more

Saudi Arabia Responds to Iran Deal: Give Us 600 Patriot Missiles

…“We saw this coming,” said Thomas Karako, a missile defense expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “This is the consequence of leaving the Iranian missile program intact and in fact signaling sanctions will go down on it.”

Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Cooperation Council allies have been upping their missile defenses in recent years. In April, Riyadh bought $2 billion worth of Patriots, and just last week, the Pentagon bought $1.5 billion worth of Patriots for Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Taiwan, South Korea — and Saudi Arabia again.

“We’re going to see more of this,” Karako said. “So long as the Iranian missile threat exists, GCC and other countries in the region are going to have to invest in counters offensive and defensive.”…

Read more

Jews stood up to the U.S. government 40 years ago, and should again on Iran

Soviet Party leader Leonid Brezhnev and President Richard Nixon at talks in Ukraine in 1974.

These days, like many Israelis and American Jews, I find myself in a precarious and painful situation. Those of us who believe that the nuclear agreement just signed between world powers and Iran is dangerously misguided are now compelled to criticize Israel’s best friend and ally, the government of the United States. In standing up for what we think is right, for both our people and the world, we find ourselves at odds with the power best able to protect us and promote stability. And instead of joining the hopeful chorus of those who believe peace is on the horizon, we must risk giving the impression that we somehow prefer war.

As difficult as this situation is, however, it is not unprecedented. Jews have been here before, 40 years ago, at a historic juncture no less frightening or fateful than today’s.

In the early 1970s, Republican President Richard Nixon inaugurated his policy of detente with the Soviet Union with an extremely ambitious aim: to end the Cold War by normalizing relations between the two superpowers.

Among the obstacles Nixon faced was the USSR’s refusal to allow on-site inspections of its weapons facilities. Moscow did not want to give up its main advantage, a closed political system that prevented information and people from escaping and prevented prying eyes from looking in.

Yet the Soviet Union, with its very rigid and atrophied economy, badly needed cooperation with the free world, which Nixon was prepared to offer. The problem was that he was not prepared to demand nearly enough from Moscow in return. And so as Nixon moved to grant the Soviet Union most-favored-nation status, and with it the same trade benefits as U.S. allies, Democratic Sen. Henry Jackson of Washington proposed what became a historic amendment, conditioning the removal of sanctions on the Soviet Union’s allowing free emigration for its citizens.

By that time, tens of thousands of Soviet Jews had asked permission to leave for Israel. Jackson’s amendment sought not only to help these people but also and more fundamentally to change the character of detente, linking improved economic relations to behavioral change by the USSR. Without the free movement of people, the senator insisted, there should be no free movement of goods….

Read more

Obama's 50 'moderates' trained in $500 million program to fight the Islamic State have disappeared in Syria

It’s bad enough that $500 million was wasted on this boondoggle, with Republican Congressional approval. It’s bad enough that this lavishly funded program could only attract fifty “moderates” willing to be trained to fight the Islamic State. But now those fifty have compounded the ludicrousness of this entire endeavor by vanishing in Syria. Did they turn over their “four wheel drive pickup trucks” to the Islamic State and join its ranks? Possibly. Did they get waylaid by Islamic State jihadis who killed them and seized their fancy U.S.-funded pickups? Another possibility. Did they disappear to some relatively peaceful place, hoping to enjoy their American largesse unmolested there? Yet another possibility.

Whatever happened to them, one thing is certain: the U.S. will not end funding for this ridiculous program. If anything, Congress will pour even more taxpayer dollars into it….

Read more

Obama Cannot Alter Non-Proliferation Treaty By Executive Order

…The Iran Deal will not have the status of even a statute. As currently planned, it will not be subject to the constitutionally mandated process for Senate consent for a treaty. Nor will the Iran Deal become a statute even under the Corker-Cardin process of Congressional review. Moreover, as seems likely, the Iran Deal will result in a joint resolution that will have the support of fewer than half of the members of either house of Congress, hardly the foundation for a statute.

Congress had not seen the Iran Deal before the Corker-Cardin process was enacted and had no reason to believe that it would violate the NPT.   On April 27 just before the Corker-Cardin bill was approved, Secretary Kerry remarked at the 2015 NPT meeting that “nonproliferation must be non-negotiable.  There is no room under the NPT for a country to negotiate its way into becoming a nuclear-armed state … “[A]ny deal with Iran will rely not on promises, non on words, but on proof…verification is at the heart of the NPT.”

The Corker-Cardin bill established a process to review an executive order, not review a treaty amendment. No one has put forth an argument that Congress can bind itself in advance to a process to create or amend a treaty by a process different from that stated in the constitution.

Perhaps most troubling is that the Iran Deal conflicts with—indeed, violates—the NPT, an international treaty to which the United States is a signatory….

Read more

IDF says it could launch preemptive strikes in Sinai

An IDF Merkava tank rolls along the border between Israel and the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip on Monday, July 28, 2014
(AFP/David Buimovitch)

A senior military officer has said Israel could attack militants affiliated to the Islamic State in neighboring Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, if they were about to attack Israeli soldiers or civilians.

The “threat of terror from Sinai” has grown in recent years, Brigadier General Royi Elcabets said on Wednesday.

Speaking at a ceremony marking the end of his two years as commander of the Edom division that controls the border with the Sinai, Elcabets said IS’s Egypt affiliate could attempt an attack on Israel….

Read more

What the Syrian Weapons Charade Says About the Iran Deal

The Wall Street Journal has an eye-opening expose today about how Syria failed to comply with its obligations under the agreement with the United States to get rid of all of its chemical weapons. Reporters David Entous and Naftali Bendavid write, “One year after the West celebrated the removal of Syria’s arsenal as a foreign-policy success, U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that the regime didn’t give up all of the chemical weapons it was supposed to.” Indeed, Bashar Assad continues to drop chemical weapons, specifically chlorine bombs.

How did this happen? The reasons are instructive in light of the administration’s argument that Iran will be forced to comply with the nuclear deal. The article notes:

The Syrians laid out the ground rules. Inspectors could visit only sites Syria had declared, and only with 48-hour notice. Anything else was off-limits, unless the regime extended an invitation.

“We had no choice but to cooperate with them,” said Mr. Cairns [the leader of the UN inspection team]. “The huge specter of security would have hampered us had we gone in there very aggressively or tried to do things unilaterally.”

The U.S. and other powers had the right to demand access to undeclared sites if they had evidence they were part of the chemical-weapons program. But that right was never exercised, in part, inspectors and Western officials say, because their governments didn’t want a standoff with the regime….

Read more

Old Europe Pushes Iran Deal on Capitol Hil

ObamaObama is enlisting the ambassadors of the UK, France and Germany to sell the agreement to Congress. They cut a stylish swath through Capitol Hill: a distinguished Brit, a dapper Frenchman with colorful pocket squares and a floppy-haired German in black-framed glasses.

As the Obama administration steps up its campaign to sell the Iran nuclear deal on Capitol Hill, it has enlisted a crucial ally in Europe’s top ambassadors to Washington.

Obama officials flooding Congress to sell the pact are now working in tandem with ambassadors from the three European nations — Great Britain, France and Germany — that also signed off on the July 14 agreement. The diplomatic trio, whose countries are known together as the “E3,” echo administration talking points and parries specific concerns from skeptical members of Congress. They also push a signature message: that the Iran deal is an international agreement, not just the handiwork of a Democratic president scorned by the GOP.

“We think it’s important that people who will vote on the bill understand that it’s not just about this administration and the Iranian government. The other governments who …

Read more