Jerusalem Pearl Hotel
This hotel is CLOSED. Click below to compare rates in all Jerusalem hotels
| |||||||||||||||||
HOTEL DAN PEARL JERUSALEM 
Zahal Sq ,, 91007 Jerusalem, Israel
There are 76 guest rooms and 28 luxury suites exquisitely designed with a full complement of support services. The rooms are medium in size on average, decorated in pale colours. The hotel's dining room is located at the lobby level overlooking Jaffa Road, it is spacious bright and elegant. This is a modern architectural style building built in white stones with double glazzing panoramic windows. The marbled lobby is large and benefits from the breathtaking views of the walls of the old city. It is elegantly decorated with a charming lounge and bar facilities adjacent to it. This Superior First Class hotel has an indoor swimming pool, a health club with a jacuzzi, steam room, sauna and massage. The hotel also has undergroung parking and a synagogue. It is a Glatt Kosher hotel.
***From 07/OCT/07, the hotel will be under the new ownership management.
***From 07/OCT/07, the hotel will be closed for renovation untill further notice.07/07.
***From 07/OCT/07, the hotel will be under the new ownership management.
***From 07/OCT/07, the hotel will be closed for renovation untill further notice.07/07.
THE BASICS OF OUR LEGAL RIGHTS
ReplyDeleteISRAEL IS NOT AN “OCCUPIER”
Will you remain silent while the PA continues to tell lies?
• They are used to advance the BDS movement.
• They promote the rights of the PA Arabs to a state in Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem (j-s-j).
Until now, these lies have not been consistently refuted by Israel. Use the information below to effectively counter these damaging and false charges.
The following claims are made:
• In 1967 Israel conquered Judea and Samaria and part of Jerusalem from the Kingdom of Jordan, which held legal jurisdiction over the territory.
• This was/and is “Palestinian Arab” territory.
• The Laws of Occupation apply to Israeli presence in Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem (j-s-j).
• The settlements are illegal.
Each of these assumptions is incorrect:
Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem are part of the area designated by the Mandate for Palestine for the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish People only. That status of the land has not changed.
The Mandate – enacted in international law by the League of Nations and assigned to Great Britain – was predicated on the Balfour Declaration and preceded by the San Remo Conference.
Article 80 of the UN charter, 1945, assured that the rights inherent in the Mandate were not abrogated or altered because of the demise of the League of Nations and its succession by the UN.
Contrary to popular opinion, there was no legal decision made in 1947 to ‘partition’ the land called Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state. There was merely a recommendation by the UN General Assembly (Resolution 181). The Arabs refused to accept this and Judea and Samaria then remained, without change, part of the territory that the Mandate for Palestine had established for a Jewish homeland.
Jordan’s entry into Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem in 1948 as part of an offensive military action was illegal. Jordan’s annexation of this land was in contravention of international law.
Israel took this land from Jordan in 1967 during a defensive war, which makes its actions legal. The areas that Israel took control of during the Six Day War in 1967 were not part of any other legal sovereignty. They were stateless areas that had in any case been designated for the Jewish People by the Mandate for Palestine.
The Laws of Occupation apply to a situation in which territory is taken from another state. Since Israel did not take land from a sovereign state, the laws do not apply to Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem. The injunctions and restrictions that lawfully might be placed on an occupying nation are not relevant to Israel’s presence in Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem.
The claim that Israel’s presence in Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention is frequently used to bolster the argument that Israel is an occupier. However, there is a very solid body of legal opinion – including that of the International Red Cross – that concludes that the Convention was drafted to address situations of coercive transfer of population, such as that practiced by the Nazis. This is not remotely connected to Israel’s settlement policy.
The charge is made frequently that Israel must “return” to its legitimate “pre-1967 border.” The line – often called the Green Line – was not a border, however: It was an armistice line. The 1949 armistice agreement between Israel and Jordan defined this ceasefire line as temporary, saying that a final border would be established via negotiations. Those negotiations were never held.
ReplyDeleteSecurity Council Resolution 242, passed in 1967, did not require Israel to return behind the Green Line, but instead recognized Israel’s need for secure borders. No pullback by Israel was called for until after negotiations had determined the final border. Those negotiations, which would have been with Jordan, were never held. (Note: Jordan officially relinquished all claims to Judea and Samaria in 1988.)
There was no mention of a “Palestinian People” or a “Palestinian State” in Resolution 242. There has never been a Palestinian State and Judea and Samaria in no sense belong to the Palestinian Arabs.
The claim that the Palestinian Arabs are entitled to a state is purely a political and not a legal argument.
Therefore:
The settlements are not illegal.
Israel is not an occupier in Judea-Samaria or Jerusalem.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNo Arab-Palestinian state west of the Jordan River
ReplyDeleteIf you read the 1917 Balfour Declaration (Which emulated Napoleons 1799 letter to the Jewish community in Palestine promising that The National Home for The Jewish people will be reestablished in Palestine, as the Jews are the rightful owners). Nowhere does it state an Arab entity west of The Jordan River. The San Remo Conference of 1920 does not state an Arab entity west of The Jordan River, confirmed by Article 95 in the 1920 Treaty of Sevres. The Mandate for Palestine terms does not state an Arab entity west of the Jordan River. It specifically states a Jewish National Home in Palestine without limiting the Jewish territory in Palestine. It also states that the British should work with the Jewish Agency as the official representative of the Jews in Palestine to implement the National Home of the Jewish people in Palestine. I stress again; nowhere does it state that an Arab entity should be implemented west of the Jordan River.
As a matter of historical record, The British reallocated over 77% of Jewish Palestine to the Arab-Palestinians in 1922 with specific borders and Jordan took over additional territory like the Gulf of Aqaba which was not part of the allocation to Jordan.
No where in any of the above stated agreements does it provides for an Arab entity west of the Jordan River. The U.N. resolutions are non-binding with no legal standing, same applies to the ICJ. The Oslo Accords are null and void.
It is time to relocate the Arabs in Israel to Jordan and to the homes and the 120,000 sq. km. the Arab countries confiscated from the over a million Jewish families that they terrorized and expelled and those expelled Jews were resettled in Israel. They can use the trillions of dollars in reparations for the Jewish assets to finance the relocation of the Arabs and help set-up an economy and industry instead of living on the world charity.
YJ Draiman
The U.N. is a useless organization and counter-productive – Issues Non-binding resolutions with no legal standing that includes the ICJ advisory only.
ReplyDeleteThe U.N. cannot create State or modify borders, they have no such authority.
In a Democratic legal system if you have decision that you think is erroneous or unjust you can appeal that decision and many times it is reversed.
U.N. opinions and or resolutions are (non-binding) biased, unjust, arbitrary and capricious (the same apply to the ICJ – International Court of Justice).
The U.N. has issued numerous opinions and non-binding resolutions that are biased, unsubstantiated and contrary to historical and factual evidence. This U.N. collusion with corrupt and biased countries and the issuance of non-binding egregious opinions and resolution has eroded the credibility of the U.N. beyond repair.
This has raised the ire and an outcry by many nations, politicians and institutions to de-fund the U.N. and dismantle it.
It is well known that the U.N. and the ICJ can only offer and issue a non-binding advisory recommended opinions and resolutions which carry no legal standing or affect. They can only issue a non-binding recommendation and resolution and if it is accepted by all parties in writing, then their recommended opinion and resolution is applicable (Provided the parties abide by the terms). Otherwise it has no meaning, validity, and no legal standing.
Therefore, my suggestion is stop panicking and aggrandizing these biased criminal organizations. Their recommended non-binding opinion has no meaningful value and no legal standing.
By reacting to and citing the non-binding recommendations of this criminal organization as having any validity, you are misleading the public that the recommended opinions by these criminal organizations might have some validity, which it does not.
It is time to expose the fraud and deception by these unethical, corrupt and unjust organizations and dismantle them completely.
It will also save a substantial amount of money and resources that could be put to a better use.
YJ Draiman
P.S. The League of Nations was replaced by the United Nations, since the league did not accomplish its purpose. The U.N. has not accomplished its purpose for what it was created to perform ethically and honestly.
In today's society the Nations of the world can function without an organization such as the U.N.