Article 80 and the UN Recognition of a “Palestinian State”

Article 80 and the UN Recognition of a “Palestinian State”

by Howard Grief

The Signing of the United Nations Charter in 1945.

In the entire debate now taking place on whether the United Nations Security Council or General Assembly has the right to approve the application of the “Palestinian Authority” to be recognized as a new member state of the UN, almost no mention is made of the legal fact that the UN itself is barred by its own Charter from acting upon or approving such an application. The reference here is, of course, to Article 80 of the UN Charter, once known unofficially as the Jewish People’s clause, which preserves intact all the rights granted to Jews under the Mandate for Palestine, even after the Mandate’s expiry on May 14-15, 1948. Under this provision of international law (the Charter is an international treaty), Jewish rights to Palestine and the Land of Israel were not to be altered in any way unless there had been an intervening trusteeship agreement between the states or parties concerned, which would have converted the Mandate into a trusteeship or trust territory. The only period of time such an agreement could have been concluded under Chapter 12 of the UN Charter was during the three-year period from October 24, 1945, the date the Charter entered into force after appropriate ratifications, until May 14-15, 1948, the date the Mandate expired and the State of Israel was proclaimed. Since no agreement of this type was made during this relevant three-year period, in which Jewish rights to all of Palestine may conceivably have been altered had Palestine been converted into a trust territory, those Jewish rights that had existed under the Mandate remained in full force and effect, to which the UN is still committed by Article 80 to uphold, or is prohibited from altering.

As a direct result of Article 80, the UN cannot transfer these rights over any part of Palestine, vested as they are in the Jewish People, to any non-Jewish entity, such as the “Palestinian Authority.” Among the most important of these Jewish rights are those contained in Article 6 of the Mandate which recognized the right of Jews to immigrate freely to the Land of Israel and to establish settlements thereon, rights which are fully protected by Article 80 of the UN Charter.

It should be common knowledge that under the Mandate, all of Palestine was reserved exclusively for the establishment of the Jewish National Home and future independent Jewish State, as was previously decided at the San Remo Peace Conference that took place in April 1920. Or put another way, no part of Palestine was allotted for an Arab National Home or state, since Arab self-determination was being generously granted elsewhere – in Syria, Iraq, Arabia, Egypt and North Africa – which has led to the establishment of the 21 Arab states of today, over a vast land mass from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean. There is thus no necessity for a new independent Arab State in the specific area of former Mandated Palestine reserved for Jewish self-determination, most particularly, in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Creating such a state out of Jewish land would be blatantly illegal under Article 80 of the UN Charter and beyond the legal authority of the UN itself.

In this respect, neither the League of Nations nor its successor, the United Nations, ever had sovereign rights over the land we Jews call Eretz-Israel. As a non-sovereign, the UN has no power whatsoever to allot territory to the “Palestinian Authority” where the allotted territory already belongs to the Jewish People.

Moreover, there is no article in the UN Charter which gives either the Security Council or the General Assembly or even the Trusteeship Council the power to create a new independent state. If the UN had such power, then logically it would also have the inverse power to “de-create” or dismember an existing state, a power it certainly does not enjoy under the UN Charter. If, theoretically speaking, this power did exist, the UN would be in effect a world legislature that could make or unmake states by its own volition, a power that would put in jeopardy the present world order.

For the foregoing reasons, the bill introduced in the US Congress by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is definitely the proper course of action to follow. UN illegality needs to be roundly condemned and stopped dead in its tracks by an appropriate punitive measure, exactly as Ros-Lehtinen has proposed. Her bill would be even more worthy if it were to include a direct reference to Article 80 and to the fact that the UN has no legal power to create a state or to allot another state’s territory for that purpose, accomplished through the devious or underhanded means of accepting the applicant’s request for membership in the world body.

·                                 Yj Draiman • 9 minutes agoHold on, this is waiting to be approved by algemeiner.

Face it - No Arab-Palestinian state west of the Jordan River
If 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 April 1920 which incorporated The Balfour Declaration into International Law with no boundary restrictions it does not state an Arab entity west of The Jordan River, confirmed by Article 95 in the 1920 Treaty of Sevres which was signed by all the Allied Powers and the Treaty of Lausanne.
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 or restricting 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 illegally 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. The British also illegally and in violation of treaty, traded the Jewish Golan Heights to the French for the right to Iraq and its oil..
The United Nations resolutions are non binding with no legal standing it does not create an Arab Palestinian state and it has no authority to change the April 1920 San Remo treaty or modify the terms of the Mandate for Palestine which has the force of international law in perpetuity.

No where in any of the above stated agreements does it provides for an Arab entity west of the Jordan River. The U.N. and General Assembly resolutions are non-binding with no legal standing, same applies to the ICJ. The Oslo Accords are null and void as state by Mahmmoud Abbas at the U.N.

Israel must disband the Arab-PA and take back full control and sovereignty of all the territory west of the Jordan River – All of Judea and Samaria without delay. Time for talk is over. Now is the time for action to restore our Jewish sovereignty in all the Land of Israel and stop terror and violence.

It is time to relocate the Arabs in Israel to Jordan and to the homes and the over 120,000 sq. km. of Jewish land 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. The Arab countries were allocated over 13 million sq. km. (6 million sq. miles) with a wealth of oil reserves.
YJ Draiman

P.S. Possession is nine tenths of the law – Israel has it.
Political Rights in Palestine aka The Land of Israel were granted only and exclusively to the Jews in all of Palestine and the right to settle in all of Palestine with no boundary exclusions.

The Jewish people’s war of survival was not won when Hitler lost. It continues to this day, against enemies with more effective tools of mass murder at their disposal.
Plus we are easy to find now.

"His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country". This was adopted by a dozen Major countries: U.S., France, China, Russia, Italy, Spain, Japan and the Vatican to name some.

o                                                   

salubrius • 2 years ago

The rights that the Jews wanted saved in Article 80 are those that were listed in a memorandum of April, 1945 to the Committee drafting the proposed UN Charter. This was a Memorandum from the Jewish Agency (referred to in the Palestine Mandate) and signed by Chaim Weizmann. He refers specifically to the rights the US listed in a US proposal in a report of January 21, 1919 delivered to the US President and plenipotentiaries at the Paris Peace Talks. Here is an excerpt from it:

That this was also the understanding of the American Delegation at the Peace Conference appears from the Outline of Tentative Report and Recommendations prepared by the Intelligence Section of that Delegation, in accordance with instructions, for the President and Plenipotentiaries at the Peace Conference, dated January 21, 1919,which recommended:

"1. That there be established a separate state of Palestine.

"2. That this state be placed under Great Britain as a
Mandatory of the League of Nations.

"3. That the Jews be invited to return to Palestine and
settle there, being assured by the Conference of all proper assistance in so doing that may be consistent with the protection of the personal (especially the religious) and property rights of the non-Jewish population, AND BEING FURTHER ASSURED THAT IT WILL BE THE POLICY OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS TO RECOGNIZE PALESTINE AS A JEWISH STATE AS SOON AS IT IS A JEWISH STATE IN FACT. [emphasis added]. See also, Article 7 of 1933 Montevideo Convention on tacit recognition of statehood. Palestine was tacitly recognized by US Presidents Harding and Coolidge in 1922 and 1924 respectively.

This was a phased plan for reconstituting the Jewish Nation. The first phase was promoting Jewish immigration into Palestine, and the second phase was recognition of their national rights to set up a government and administer it if and when they attained a population majority and had the capability to meet the obligations for the exercise of sovereignty.

The US, the UK and the Zionist Organization all believed it would be a mistake to provide for immediate sovereignty. See, in addition to the foregoing memo, a British Foreign Office memo of December 19, 1917 explaining the Balfour Declaration and a short book written by Harry Sacher explaining the provisions of the Balfour Declaration that had been published in November, 1917. "A Jewish Palestine: the Jewish case for a British trusteeship.

In line with this President Wilson on March 3, 1919 declared: "I am persuaded that the Allied Nations with the fullest concurrence of our own Government and people are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundations of a Jewish Commonwealth."

MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED TO THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION , SAN FRANCISCO , CALIFORNIA , BY THE JEWISH AGENCY FOR PALESTINE APRIL, 1945. You can find it on-line at:
http://www.bjpa.org/Publica...

YJ Draiman • 3 years ago

Israel stands in the way and is an obstacle to full Muslim domination of the Middle East

The West fears Islamic aggression (which has been going on since WW1), and is opting for appeasement. Propaganda is being used to try to convince people that Muslims in Israel, and in the Gaza Strip, West Bank, and Golan Heights, are being mistreated. Islamist forces have conducted maneuvers at the borders of Israel, and have continuously lobbed missiles into Israel. Islam constantly threatens Israel, often using language that proclaims a desire for the complete destruction of Israel. The Arab-Palestinians have spoken to the world, proclaiming parts of Israel to belong to them.

Peace in the Middle East is desired at any cost by the Western Appeasers. The unrest is being blamed on Israel. Islam promises that the Arab-Palestinian claims are the last they will make in Israel. If land is traded for peace, they say, then the unrest in the Middle East will ease, which is a delusion and not reality.

The Western Leaders, fearful that if the Muslims are not appeased the world could plunge into terrorism (which it has already and increasing daily), have decided they need to negotiate with the Arab-Palestinians, grant them the Statehood they suddenly desire, and grant them their demands for the purpose of a delusional peace.

As The West prepares for appeasement, the forces of jihadism are on the rise in Egypt, Syria, Libya, Turkey and Iran and extends to Pakistan, Afghanistan and former Russian states. Egypt's peace with Israel has been guaranteed by U.S. involvement, and land for peace. The treaty with Egypt was based on the proposition of the Sinai in 1982 for peace. The Islamists moving into position to gain power in Egypt places the treaty at risk. They have no intention of abiding by its provisions.

The concept of land for peace has failed, as it failed prior to WW2. Islamism does not care about land. Islamism only cares about the destruction of Israel, the destruction of non-Islamic societies, and ultimately the worldwide domination of Islam through a Muslim caliphate.

Israel gives land because they want the Arabs to abide by peace agreements. Israel craves peace, but deep down knows that it is not possible. Islam has made it loud and clear that land for peace is a one way street. Israeli land giveaways are permanent, but Islamic commitments to peace are revoked at any time.

With the current presidential administration in the United States, and the liberal socialists in control of the U.N. and Europe, Israel stands alone. No one plans to stand up for Israel's right to exist, as history has proven, the Jewish people have ultimately been abandoned by the world nations. The Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist parties are working to take an absolute majority in Egypt and other Muslim countries, but The West has fallen for the propaganda that claims these parties are moderate and pragmatic. ISIS has proven that this approach is wrong and detrimental to peaceful coexistence.

The fact is, the rising Islamist control over the Muslim nations has no intention of respecting treaties, or Israel's right to exist. They are waiting for conflict, and then will blame it on Israel. Talks are doomed to failure. The Islamists want it that way or the highway.

Land for Peace fails. Liberalism fails. Only a strong and direct military posture with no-holds-barred that stands up against the rising threat will succeed. . . but the appeasers refuse to learn from history, and like Neville Chamberlain with Germany, Barack Obama and his fellow appeasers are positioning the world for a new world conflict that could turn the world to ashes.

A viable solution for the conflict is: Two States - Greater Israel for the Jewish people as guaranteed by International law and treaties after WW1 and Jordan that was originally part of the territory allocated to the Jewish people under 1920 international treaties, thus Jordan has 75% of its people are Arab-Palestinians and the 120,000 sq. km. or 72,000 sq. mi. (6 times the size of Israel) the Arab countries confiscated from the million plus Jewish families they persecuted and expelled from Arab countries and confiscated all their assets, businesses, homes and Real estate property valued in the trillions of dollars. That should settle the refugee problem once and for all. But the Arabs will not be satisfied until they get all of Israel without the Jews and they do not hide their intention.

YJ Draiman.

Ron • 3 years ago

Wow! This thread is filled with more genuine geniuses than MIT, Technion and Oxford -- put together! And not one of you pointed out that the UN and the Obama dictatorship are serial law breakers! So put away your legal documents and historical narratives and simply be prepared for another war because that ignominious organization called the United Nations and the Islamist president of the United States are colluding as we type in a villainous attempt to eradicate Israel whether it's legal or not.

Michael Rorer • a year ago

I believe your key statement '... .It should be common knowledge that under the Mandate, all of Palestine was reserved exclusively for the establishment of the Jewish National Home..' to be not only false, but dangerously false. ------ Even if we leave aside the very questionable from legal stand point assertion that the San Remo declaration takes precedence over the later UN resolution 181, ... the San Remo declaration does not says what you claim it says. Specifically, it repeats the sentence from Balfour declaration about establishing the Jewish national home IN Palestine, not making the whole Palestine a Jewish state.----------------------------------- Later it was clarified: '...Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded "in Palestine." In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the up-building of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development"'...------ I am sure you recognize this document.

Yj Draiman  Michael Rorer • 11 minutes agoHold on, this is waiting to be approved by algemeiner.

Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed with a caveat provided the Arabs accept the terms and the Jewish State - But the Arabs refused to accept the terms which may the statement by the Jewish organization null and void.
The U.N. is a useless organization and counter-productive – Issues Non-binding resolutions with no legal standing that includes the ICJ advisory only.
The 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.
YJ Draiman

Joseph Feld  Michael Rorer • 10 months ago

77% of Mandatory Palestine was given to create the Arab Kingdom of Jordan, leaving 23% on the West Bank for the Jewish national home. I believe Churchill took this decision to divide Palestine because there could not be a Jewish majority state otherwise. See Sir Martin Gilbert, 'Churchill and The Jews' (Simon and Schuster 2007, pages 50 and 292.)

squeakywheel3  Joseph Feld • 7 months ago

I rather doubt that the reason for truncating the Jewish National Home, at this juncture, had much to do with concern for a Jewish majority --- as Eastern [viz., transJordanian] Palestine was, apart from its migratory Bedouin, sparsely populated (by anybody). The reason more likely had to do with the fact that Churchill was in a tight spot at the time

Here's the gist of it:

Having defeated Faisal's forces at the Battle of Maysalun, the recent French grantee of the Syria Mandate had deposed Faisal --- who'd hastily been made "King of Syria" by its 2nd Parliament --- and had thrown him out of the country, virtually at gunpoint. As a booby prize, the Brits gave him the throne of Iraq.

However, Iraq had been promised to Faisal's elder brother, Abdullah, and that little bit of footwork by the French & the Brits now left Abdullah odd-man-out. Whereupon Abdullah resolved, in his inimitably direct way, to rectify the situation. . . . As Colonial Secretary, Churchill greatly --- and most understandably --- feared the geopolitical consequences of Abdullah's intentions.

Churchill had taken special care to discourage Prince Abdullah: bent, at the time (on the face of it anyway), on avenging his brother’s ouster from Syria (and of course restoring the sullied family ‘honor’, etc, etc) — from continuing a contemplated & absurdly quixotic march on Damascus.

Abdullah had begun the campaign from Mecca at the end of September 1920, with a camel caravan manned by some 200 Bedouin raiders and thirty of Abdullah's Hijazi officers with their six Maxim guns.

At the Medina depot they commandeered a train northbound for Ma’an on the Hijaz
Railway and announced an impending “tour of inspection.” Upon arrival in late November, the Prince parked himself and his ‘army’ there for three months, while attempting to rally support among the tribes for the recovery of Syria from the French.

By the time he resumed his journey north — arriving in Amman in March 1921, and
augmented now by some 1500 Turkish ex-soldiers and Hijazi tribesmen — HMG had had time to brood about the expedition’s implications and to mull over Britain’s
options. It was, apparently, clear to Churchill that Abdullah’s energies & intentions would have to be redirected — for fear of the Emir’s effectively handing the French a pretext for sending in Les Poilus to seize Eastern Palestine, to safeguard what the latter quite naturally viewed as their Syrian interests, and perhaps take Western Palestine as well.

From the first, obligatory, annual Interim Report of Mandate Palestine’s first-ever Lord High Commissioner:

“…in the month of November [1920], His Highness, the Emir Abdullah, the second son of [Sharif] Hussein, arrived from the Hijaz at Ma’an, to the south of Trans- Jordania. His purpose was declared to be to restore a Sharifian government in Damascus. His arrival caused much disturbance in the minds of the people of Trans-Jordania and further impaired the authority, already slight, of the local authorities. From Ma’an the Emir proceeded on March 2nd to Amman, a town on the Hijaz Railway to the east of Salt, and there established his headquarters.

“The Secretary of State for the Colonies [Churchill] being in Palestine in the month of March, a Conference was held with the Emir, who came to Jerusalem for the purpose. An arrangement was reached…”

[Annual Interim Report of the Mandatory on the Civil Administration of Palestine During the Period, 1 July 1920 – 30 June 1921, as Presented to the Council of the League of Nations, by Sir Herbert Samuel, High Commissioner and Commander-in-Chief, on 30 July 1921]

Once in possession of Eastern Palestine, the French would have then been poised, should they be so tempted, to make a move on the oilfields of neighboring Kirkuk & Mosul (or, from Western Palestine, even on the Suez Canal).

Now, thus, in the interests of keeping the French out of the picture, as well as of
allaying any perceived popular home dissatisfaction with the burdens of retaining the Palestine Mandate (and in order to deflect the political manipulation of that apparent restiveness by the Cabinet’s parliamentary opponents), it was evident that a Transjordania separated from the rest of Palestine was clearly the easiest of maneuvers for the British Colonial Office (in cooperation with the Foreign Office), howsoever brazen the gambit, and notwithstanding the acknowledged economic interconnectedness of the two territories.

Churchill, though long & earnestly cordial to Zionist aims, and recently made Sec State for Colonial Affairs — the Colonial Office having been, at that juncture, recently assigned responsibility for the civilian Mandate Administration after that summer’s transfer of authority from OETA, which had been answerable to the Foreign Office (headed by the non-Zionist-congenial, Lord Curzon) — seems to have been given to understand (wrongly) by the empire-building, old hands in the Colonial Office’s
freshly-minted “Middle East Department”: particularly its Jew-loathing director, Sir John Evelyn Shuckburgh, as well as, of course, the not-altogether anti-Zionist but irrepressibly self-promoting & fanciful Col. Lawrence [of Arabia], and other careerist, imperial functionaries from the colonies — that HMG not only were greatly ‘indebted’ to the Arabs but had, moreover, actually ‘promised’ transJordanian Palestine to the Hashemites during the War.

It was by no means so — on either count. With his typical (and most enviable) succinctness, Prof Michael Cohen of UC Berkeley comes right to the point: “Whereas the British undoubtedly incurred some moral commitments to the cause of Arab independence in 1915, the Husayn-McMahon correspondence can in no sense be regarded as an agreement legally binding on either side.”

[Michael J. Cohen, Origins and Evolution of the Arab-Zionist Conflict (Univ of Calif. Press, Berkeley, 1987), p. 24]

But Churchill was new in the job and Shuckburgh’s bureaucrats, well-seasoned & firmly-entrenched: particularly aided, as these avowed colonialists and unblushing, down-the-line, imperialists were, by a newfound righteousness characterized by straight-faced moralizing about the inherent ‘unfairness’ of imposing ‘alien’ Jews on the local Arabs — instead, presumably, of imposing an alien Abdullah on them — to say nothing of sanctimonious bloviating and prissy, priggish preachifying about keeping HMG’s ‘promises’ — by trashing the solemnly articulated and duly ratified pledges of the San Remo Resolution and the Balfour Declaration, and now, even before its formal ratification & implementation, those of the Mandate as well.

UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, the decision to amputate was expedient and altogether “safe,” as it were, since the Jews (as the party with the greatest direct
interest in opposing the surgery) were powerless to prevent it, or believed they were (which, in context, amounted to much the same thing):

--- "The Zionist leaders were stunned by the threatened lopping off of three quarters of the area of the projected Jewish National Home; its establishment had, after all, been Britain’s warrant for being granted the Mandate. But the British government countered with the proposal that, if the Zionists did not accept the situation, Britain would decline the Mandate altogether and thus withdraw her protection from the Jewish restoration.

--- "[Now, however, t]he Zionist leaders—struggling with the material problem of building a country out of a desert and restoring a people, largely impoverished, from the four corners of the world — were moreover inadequately equipped with political experience to judge the emptiness of the British threat. They did not feel strong enough to resist this blow to the integrity and security of the state-in-building and to
their faith in the sanctity of compacts."

[Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine (Bantam, NY, 1973; 3d Edition, Steimatzky, NY, 1985), p. 57]

There's somewhat more to be said, but this post is already overlong, and I've given you the action. The rest is all dénouement. The gouging out of transJordanian Palestine from the Jewish National Home was essentially (IMABHO) Churchill's way of extricating himself and the govt he served from a difficult situation.

squeakywheel3  Joseph Feld • 7 months ago

"I believe Churchill took this decision to divide Palestine because there could not be a Jewish majority state otherwise."

That would seem unlikely to be the reason, as Transjordanian Palestine, apart from migratory Bedouin, was sparsely populated (by anybody).

More likely, the reason had to do with the fact that Churchill was in a tight spot at the time. After defeating Faisal's forces at the battle of Maysalun, the French Mandatory had thrown Faisal --- recently made "king" of Syria by its 2nd Congress --- out of the country, virtually at gunpoint. As a booby prize, the Brits gave him the throne of Iraq.

However, Iraq had been promised to his elder brother Abdullah, who now found himself odd-man-out. Abdullah resolved to recover Syria (to say nothing of the sullied family honor, etc) from the French. Abdullah had begun the campaign from Mecca at the end of September 1920, with a camel caravan manned by 30 officers, a couple hundred Bedouin raiders, and six Maxim guns.

At the Medina depot, he commandeered a train northbound for Ma’an and announced an impending “tour of inspection.” Upon arrival in Ma'an, the Prince parked himself and his ‘army’ there for three months, while attempting to rally support among the tribes for the recovery of Syria from the French.

By the time Abdullah resumed his journey north — arriving in Amman in March 1921, and augmented now by some 1500 Turkish ex-soldiers & Hijazi tribesmen — HMG had had time to brood over the expedition’s implications and mull over Britain’s options. It was, apparently, clear to Churchill that Abdullah’s energies & intentions would have to be redirected --- for fear of the Emir’s effectively handing the French a pretext for sending in les poilus to seize Eastern [viz., transjordanian] Palestine, to safeguard what the latter quite naturally viewed as their Syrian interests, and perhaps take Western Palestine as well.

From the first, obligatory, annual Interim Report of Mandate Palestine’s first-ever Lord High Commissioner:

“…in the month of November [1920], His Highness, the Emir Abdullah, the second son of [Sharif] Hussein, arrived from the Hijaz at Ma’an, to the south of Trans-Jordania. His purpose was declared to be to restore a Sharifian government in Damascus. His arrival caused much disturbance in the minds of the people of Trans-Jordania and further impaired the authority, already slight, of the local authorities.

"From Ma’an the Emir proceeded on March 2nd to Amman, a town on the Hijaz Railway to the east of Salt, and there established his headquarters. The Secretary of State for the Colonies [Churchill] being in Palestine in the month of March, a Conference was held with the Emir, who came to Jerusalem for the purpose. An arrangement was reached…”

[Annual Interim Report of the Mandatory on the Civil Administration of Palestine During the Period, 1 July 1920 – 30 June 1921, as Presented to the Council of the League of Nations, by Sir Herbert Samuel, High Commissioner and Commander-in-Chief, on 30 July 1921]

Once in possession of Eastern Palestine, the French would have then been poised, should they be so tempted, to make a move on the oilfields of neighboring Kirkuk &
Mosul (or, from Western Palestine, on the Suez Canal).

Now, thus, in the interests of keeping the French out of the picture, as well as of
allaying any perceived popular home dissatisfaction with the burdens of retaining the Palestine Mandate (and in order to deflect the political manipulation of that apparent restiveness by the Cabinet’s parliamentary opponents), it was evident that a Transjordania separated from the rest of Palestine was clearly the easiest of
maneuvers for the British Colonial Office (in cooperation with the Foreign Office), howsoever brazen the gambit, and notwithstanding the acknowledged economic interconnectedness of the two territories.

Churchill, though long & earnestly cordial to Zionist aims, and recently made Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs — the Colonial Office having been, at that
juncture, recently assigned responsibility for the civilian Mandate Administration after that summer’s transfer of authority from OETA, which had been answerable to the Foreign Office (headed by the less Zionist-congenial, Lord Curzon) — seems to have been given to understand (wrongly) by the empire-building, old hands in the Colonial Office’s freshly-minted “Middle East Department”: particularly its Jew-loathing director, Sir John Evelyn Shuckburgh, as well as, of course, the not-altogether anti-Zionist but irrepressibly self-promoting & fanciful Col. Lawrence [of Arabia], and other careerist, imperial functionaries from the colonies — that HMG not only were greatly ‘indebted’ to the Arabs but had, moreover, actually ‘promised’ transJordanian Palestine to the Hashemites during the War.

However, it was by no means so — on either count. With his typical (and most enviable) succinctness, Prof Michael Cohen of UC Berkeley comes right to the point:“Whereas the British undoubtedly incurred some moral commitments to the cause of Arab independence in 1915, the Husayn-McMahon correspondence can in no sense be regarded as an agreement legally binding on either side.”

[Michael J. Cohen., Origins and Evolution of the Arab-Zionist Conflict (Univ of Calif. Press, Berkeley, 1987), p, 24] ]

But Churchill was new in the job and Shuckburgh’s bureaucrats, well-seasoned and
firmly-entrenched: particularly aided, as these avowed colonialists and unblushing, down-the-line, imperialists were, by a newfound righteousness characterized by straightfaced moralizing about the inherent ‘unfairness’ of imposing ‘alien’ Jews on the local Arabs — instead, presumably, of imposing an alien Abdullah on them — to say nothing of sanctimonious bloviating and prissy, priggish preachifying about keeping HMG’s ‘promises’ — by trashing the solemnly articulated and duly ratified pledges of the San Remo Resolution and the Balfour Declaration, and now, even before its formal ratification & implementation, those of the Mandate as well.

UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, the decision to amputate was expedient and altogether “safe,” as it were, since the Jews (as the party with the greatest direct
interest in opposing the surgery) were powerless to prevent it, or believed they were (which, in context, amounted to much the same thing):

--- "The Zionist leaders were stunned by the threatened lopping off of three-quarters of the area of the projected Jewish National Home; its establishment had, after all, been Britain’s warrant for being granted the Mandate. But the British government countered with the proposal that, if the Zionists did not accept the situation, Britain would decline the Mandate altogether and thus withdraw her protection from the Jewish restoration.

--- "[Now, however, t]he Zionist leaders — struggling with the material problem of building a country out of a desert and restoring a people, largely impoverished, from the four corners of the world — were moreover inadequately equipped with political experience to judge the emptiness of the British threat. They did not feel strong enough to resist this blow to the integrity and security of the state-in-building and to their faith in the sanctity of compacts."

--- [Shmuel Katz, Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine (Bantam, NY, 1973; 3d Edition, Steimatzky, NY, 1985), op cit., p. 57]

There's more to be said, but this post is already overlong, and I've given you the rising action --- the rest is strictly dénouement. In sum, the amputation of transJordanian Palestine from the Jewish National Home was Churchill's way of extricating himself from a tight spot (IMABHO).

Torben Michael Kaae  Joseph Feld • 9 months ago

Joseph Feld - correct ! When the state of Israel was proclaimed, it was within the Lines of The U.N. Partition Plan of 1947 because the Jews were a majority there (census) and because the Jews did not want to rule a majority of Arabs.

The United Nations had nothing to do with this decision; United Nations did NOT establish the State of Israel.

The U.N. does NOT possess the Power neither to establish or abolish states !

squeakywheel3  Michael Rorer • 7 months ago

"Later it was clarified"

More HIJACKED than 'clarified.' You are quoting from the 1922 Churchill White Paper, which represented HMG's position in attempting to deal with an understandably difficult situation with which it was confronted after it had been awarded the Palestine Mandate.

It did not represent, however, international law. THAT was created by the Principal Allied Powers when it generated the Mandate (and the San Remo Resolution that ordered the Mandate), and to which Powers --- in the person of the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission --- HMG were responsible and accountable.

Torben Michael Kaae  Michael Rorer • 9 months ago

Michael Rorer -
The International Court of Justice on June 21, 1971 - stated in an Advisory Opinion:

ADVISORY OPINION:

History of the Mandate

(paras. 42-86 of the Advisory Opinion)

Refuting the contentions of the South African Government and citing its own pronouncements in previous proceedings concerning South West Africa (Advisory Opinions of 1950, 1955 and 1956; Judgment of 1962), the Court recapitulates the history of the Mandate.

The mandates system established by Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations was based upon two principles of paramount importance: the principle of non-annexation and the principle that the well-being and development of the peoples concerned formed a sacred trust of civilization. Taking the developments of the past half century into account, there can be little doubt that the ultimate objective of the sacred trust was self-determination and independence. The mandatory was to observe a number of obligations, and the Council of the League was to see that they were fulfilled. The rights of the mandatory as such had their foundation in those obligations.

When the League of Nations was dissolved, the raison d'etre and original object of these obligations remained. Since their fulfillment did not depend on the existence of the League, they could not be brought to an end merely because the supervisory organ had ceased to exist. The Members of the League had not declared, or accepted even by implication, that the mandates would be cancelled or lapse with the dissolution of the League.

The last resolution of the League Assembly and Article 80, paragraph 1, of the United Nations Charter maintained the obligations of mandatories. The International Court of Justice has consistently recognized that the Mandate survived the demise of the League, and South Africa also admitted as much for a number of years. Thus the supervisory element, which is an essential part of the Mandate, was bound to survive. The United Nations suggested a system of supervision which would not exceed that which applied under the mandates system, but this proposal was rejected by South Africa.

Resolutions by the General Assembly and the Security Council

- - - - - -

EGO: RAISON D'ETRE translated to: REASON TO BE !

/ tmk.

YJ Draiman • 3 years ago

The San Remo Conference of 1920, which incorporated the Balfour Declaration as international treaty and law; reconstituted the Jewish National Home in Palestine as international law; thus, they assigned its implementation to the League of Nation with the Mandate for Palestine and the British as trustee to promote Jewish immigration, development of the land and bring about the sovereign Jewish State in all of Palestine. These terms was confirmed by the 1920 Treaty of Sevres which terms were incorporated to the Mandate of Palestine.
The Jewish National Home in all of Palestine was reconstituted to take affect in 1920; with a provision that sovereignty will be reached when they become majority.
Faisal Weizmann Agreement signed January 3, 1919, stated that The Jewish National Home will be in what is known as Palestine.
The Inquiry academics accompanied President Wilson to Paris in 1919. For Palestine, they recommended that the dispersed Jewish People settle there and later, rule in Palestine. Initial rule was to be carried out by a trustee for the Jewish People (Great Britain under the Mandate for Palestine).
American Proposal for Jewish Homeland, January 21, 1919
An excerpt from the Tentative Report and Recommendations of the Intelligence Section of the American Delegation to the Peace Conference, in accordance with instructions, for the President and the Plenipotentiaries, January 21, 1919*
26. Palestine
It is recommended:
1) That there be established a separate state of Palestine.
2) That this state be placed under Great Britain as a mandatory of the League of Nations.
3) That the Jews be invited to return to Palestine and settle there being assured by the Conference of all proper assistance in so doing that may be consistent with the protection of the personal (especially the religious) and the property rights of the non-Jewish population, and being further assured that it will be the policy of the League of Nations to recognize Palestine as a Jewish state as soon as it is a Jewish state in fact.
4) That the holy places and religious rights of all creeds in Palestine are placed under the protection of the League of Nations and it’s mandatory.
For discussion:
1) It is recommended that there be established a separate state of Palestine.
The separation of the Palestinian area from Syria finds justification in the religious experience of mankind. The Jewish and Christian churches were born in Palestine, and Jerusalem was for long years, at different periods, the capital of each. And while the relation of the Mohammedans to Palestine is not so intimate, from the beginning they have regarded Jerusalem as a holy place. Only by establishing Palestine as a separate state can justice be done to these great facts.
As drawn upon the map, the new state would control its own source of water power and irrigation, on Mount Hermon in the east to the Jordan; a feature of great importance since the success of the new state would depend upon the possibilities of agricultural development.
2) It is recommended that this state be placed under Great Britain as a mandatory of the League of Nations.
Palestine would obviously need wise and firm guidance. Its population is without political experience, is racially composite, and could easily become distracted by fanaticism and bitter religious differences.
The success of Great Britain in dealing with similar situations, her relation to Egypt, and her administrative achievements since General Allenby freed Palestine from the Turk; all indicate her as the logical mandatory.
3) It is recommended that the Jews be invited to return to Palestine and settle there, being assured by the Conference of all proper assistance in so doing that may be consistent with the protection of the personal (especially the religious) and the property rights of the non-Jewish population, and being further assured that it will be the policy of the League of Nations to recognize Palestine as a Jewish state as soon as it is a Jewish state in fact.
It is right that Palestine should become a Jewish state, if the Jews, being given the full opportunity, make it such. It was the cradle and home of their vital race, which has made large spiritual contributions to mankind, and is the only land in which they can hope to find a home of their own; they being in this last respect unique among significant peoples.
At present, however, the Jews form barely a tenth of the total population of 550,000 in Palestine, and whether they are to form a majority, or even a plurality, of the population in the future state remains uncertain. Palestine, in short, is far from being a Jewish country now. England, as mandatory, can be relied on to give the Jews the privileged position they should have without sacrificing the rights of non-Jews.
4) It is recommended that the holy places and religious rights of all creeds in Palestine be placed under the protection of the League of Nations and it’s mandatory.
The basis for this recommendation is self-evident.

Michael Farmer  YJ Draiman • a year ago

"These terms was confirmed by the 1920 Treaty of Sevres which terms were incorporated to the Mandate of Palestine."

Balfour was incorporated in the treaty ... not your wishful interpretation of it.

Avinoam Ben Dor • 3 years ago

The main problem here is that the officials at the UN are so ignorant they can't even read and understand the UN Charter.

john  Avinoam Ben Dor • 3 years ago

They know only too well, they have highly paid advisers, but they don't care. International law has no benefit to Israel. The British white paper of 1939 proved that Britain cared nothing for international law, even a sacred trust!

1  

Wallace Edward Brand • 3 years ago

The Palestine Mandate did not expire in May, 1947. It was a trust. A trust does not expire when the trustee resigns. A trust lives on until the trust res vests in the cestui sue trust or beneficiary.SSRN.com/abstract=2385304 Palestine Mandate in a Nutshell http://www.israelnationalne...

YJ Draiman • 3 years ago

Greater Israel belongs to the Jewish people under International Law!
The Jewish People's historical right to the land of Greater Israel had been recognized by the international community and upheld by the rule of public international law.
Any view that contradicts this statement is pure distortion of the facts and history.
Israel is not obliged to support the creation of an Arab state west of the Jordan river alongside Israel and it must not concede to any such arrangement or the security and survival of Israel will be compromised.
The Oslo Agreements were made with a view to enhance "a just, lasting and comprehensive peace." Yet, since their coming into effect the Middle East has witnessed not peace but violence of the worst kind in recent history. As of today the Oslo agreement is null and void. The Arab Palestinians have not lived up to any of the agreement. The Arab Palestinians promote, preach and teach their children and the masses to create terror, violence and suicide bombing. Their only goal is the destruction of the Jewish State, read the Palestinian and Hamas Charter.
The establishment of the Palestinian Authority should serve as a "guide to the bewildered" of the grave risks posed by such an Arab State, which may eventually lead to the destruction of the Jewish State. Any land for peace compromise by Israel has made the situation worse. Sadly, appeasement and concessions by Israel only aggravated the situation and increased violence. Israel must stand its ground, resist unjust world pressure and protect its citizens at all costs. Any concessions by Israel will only make the situation worse and bring about more violence and death, as the past experience has proven.
Under public international law, Israel is entitled to diligently encourage and promote close Jewish settlement of the land of Israel, thereby realizing the principles set out by the San Remo Treaty of 1920 and the League of Nations in the original Mandate document. In 1922 in violation of the treaty, the British gave away 80% of the land allocated to the Jewish people and gave it to the Arabs to set-up a state that never existed in history. (The British wanted to protect their oil interests).
In addition at that time, the Allied powers also set up 21 Arab States and one Jewish State. If you questions Israel's borders, you must question the 21 Arab States borders and Jordan.
It is also important to address the expulsion of over a million Jewish people from the Arab countries and the confiscation of land owned by Jewish people in the Arab countries, totaling 120,000 sq. km. (4 times the size of Israel) valued at over 15 trillion dollars and other personal assets confiscated by the Arabs totaling over 990 billion dollars.
The Jewish people resettled the million Jewish refugees from the Arab countries. It is about time the Arab countries who expelled the million Jewish people, must settle the Arab-Palestinian refugees once and for all without compromising Israel and bring about peace and tranquility to the region.
Neither the U.N. nor any Country in the world has the authority to create a state or dissolve a state, (check the U.N. charter and international law.)
A true peace will bring about an economic boom to the region of which the world has never seen before. It will raise the standard of living for all the people in the Middle East and accelerate peace and harmony.
It will also divert the billions of dollars invested in war materials to be used to advance the economy, medical and social services and more.
YJ Draiman

Michael Farmer  YJ Draiman • a year ago

"Greater Israel belongs to the Jewish people under International Law!"

Repeating and repeating your mantra does not change the Declaration.

1  

YJ Draiman • 3 years ago

Re: Israel - To whom it may concern in Europe, Asia, the US and elsewhere:

We are tired of hearing that withdrawal from Judea and Samaria will bring peace. We know and you know that it would bring another Gaza. So stop saying it and promoting this fallacy. Past experience has proven that concessions, appeasement and land for peace only increased terror, violence and more conflict.

We are tired of hearing that land beyond the Green Line is 'Arab-Palestinian land'. The Green Line is simply an armistice line that has no political significance. You know this too. The San Remo Treaty of 1920 Granted the Mandate for Palestine to the Jewish people, the same Allied powers also established 21 Arab States and one Jewish State - The Arabs are not willing to give up any part of the 21 Arab States and the Jews are not willing to give up any part of the Jewish State.

We are tired of hearing about the "Arab-Palestinian people." They are no different from the Arabs of Syria or Egypt, from which most of their ancestors migrated in the last 150 years or so. There is no Palestinian language or religion, and until very recently they considered themselves simply 'Arabs'. Their culture is almost entirely defined by their opposition to the Jewish state. Teaching hate and terror to their children. There never was an Arab-Palestinian State or people in History. The Arab Palestinians have a State in Jordan which is 80% of the land originally allocated to the Jewish people under the San Remo Treaty of 1920.

We are tired of hearing that "the Arab-Palestinians deserve a state." We are indigenous here, not them, and their behavior entitles them more to a trial at The Hague than to a state. The Arab Palestinians have a State it is called Jordan which was carved out of Jewish allocated land in 1922.

And they certainly don't deserve our state, which is the only state they want. They already took 80% of Jewish allocated land which is Jordan. Israel also gave them the Gaza Strip.

We are tired of hearing about 'The Occupation'. As Minister Naftali Bennett said the other day, you can't be an occupier in your own land. The Arabs are the occupiers, Greater Israel has been a Jewish state for 4,000 years even if it was temporarily conquered and occupied by various nations over the centuries.

We are tired of hearing that "settlements are illegal under international law." They are not. The San Remo Treaty of 1920 explicitly stated that Jewish people can reside anywhere in the Mandate for Palestine, those terms are set in perpetuity.

We are tired of hearing that "settlement construction is an obstacle to peace." Arab rejectionism and terrorism and suicide bombing is the reason there is no peace. When the Arab-Palestinians teach and preach hate, terror and destruction to their children, this is definitely not a road to peace and coexistence.

By the way, we are pro-peace. We are just not pro-suicide and self destruction.

We are tired of hearing about the 5 million (or whatever ridiculous number there are alleged to be) 'Arab-Palestinian refugees' or the 'Arab-Palestinian Diaspora'. There were about 600,000 Arabs that left their homes in 1948, mostly of their own volition, more or less at the same time as the over 980,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries, of which the Arabs confiscated their homes and assets. We resettled ours with limited land and resources — resettle yours, the 21 Arab states have more land and resources. The Arab dis-information must be ignored.

We are tired of hearing anything from anyone associated with the U.N. The U.N. is a parasitic and criminal enterprise dominated by our mortal enemies. The U.N. cannot create states, it can only recommend and so can other nations only recommend and not create a state that never existed before in history. If they want an Arab-Palestinian state, it already exists, it is Jordan which has taken 80% of Jewish allocated land.

We are tired of stupid post-colonialist rhetoric. We are not 'colonists' and Arabs do not have the right to murder us in the name of 'resistance' or beheading Jewish Rabbi's in Jerusalem's Har Nof Synagogue. Talking this way reveals you as moral imbeciles. They train their children to be suicide bombers. The Arabs are the colonialists.

You can not recognize a state and people that never existed and that has no borders, no single government, and no economy. They are not trusted by Arab states either.

We know we can not depend on any kind of security guarantee from anyone except the Israel Defense Forces. So stop being insulted because we do not trust you. And do not ask us to give up any nuclear weapons we might or might not have or any other method and technology that could help protect us.

We know that the left-wing parties in Israel are bankrupt of ideas. We are not going to vote for them, no matter how much you would like us to. So do not bother trying to influence our election. We will only vote for a government that protects its people and cares about the Jewish heritage, more than it cares for world opinion.

Don't believe what you read in Ha'aretz newspaper, they represent a minority that has no allegiance to the Jewish heritage.

Jerusalem, undivided, is the capital of the state of Israel. Get used to it, because you can't change it, the Jewish temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem.

Sincerely,

Ordinary Israelis who care about their heritage.

Posted by: Draiman

Michael Farmer  YJ Draiman • a year ago

"The San Remo Treaty of 1920 Granted the Mandate for Palestine to the Jewish people"?

Suggest that you study the English Language further, YJ...... or stop taking the money.

Lynn Harrison  YJ Draiman • 3 years ago

Excellent post. This American supports you fully and am ashamed and terrified by my president’s actions. My desperate hope is that we get a republican in 2016 and things will be better for Israel. Shalom.

Chad • 4 years ago

"It should be common knowledge that under the Mandate, all of Palestine was reserved exclusively for the establishment of the Jewish National Home and future independent Jewish State, as was previously decided at the San Remo Peace Conference that took place in April 1920."

I don't understand how did the author of this article reach this ridiculous conclusion;

San Remo never said that the entire Palestinian Mandate was to be the Jewish homeland and it clearly said IN Palestine not ALL of Palestine nor did it mention a future independent state, not even Jewish self rule or sovereignty but homeland i.e. a place where Jews could immigrate and live WITHOUT affecting the rights of the existing non-Jewish communities.

Michael Farmer  Chad • a year ago

"It should be common knowledge that under the Mandate, all of Palestine
was reserved exclusively for the establishment of the Jewish National
Home and future independent Jewish State, as was previously decided at
the San Remo Peace Conference that took place in April 1920."?

Didn't see the word 'all' in my copy of the Mandate...... is that pencilled in in your copy?

Wallace Edward Brand  Chad • 3 years ago

This is what the United States understood they were agreeing to:

“1) That there be established a separate state of Palestine.
2) That this state be placed under Great Britain as a mandatory of the League of Nations.
3) That the Jews be invited to return to Palestine and settle there being assured by the Conference of an proper assistance in so doing that may be consistent with the protection of the personal (especially the religious) and the property rights of the non-Jewish population, and being further assured that it will be the policy of the League of Nations to recognise [sic] Palestine as a Jewish state as soon as it is a Jewish state in fact.” http://www.eretzyisroel.org...

Harry Sacher published a short book in 1919 recommending a British trusteeship.
"A Jewish Palestine: the Jewish case for a British Trusteeship". This was adopted at San Remo, with careful British tailoring of language so as not to stir up the Arabs.

Michael Farmer  Wallace Edward Brand • a year ago

"property rights of the non-Jewish population"? .... and what happened to those rights at the hands of the Zionists?

W E Brand  Chad • 3 years ago

It would have been foolish for the Bitish to explicitly provide for A Jewish state when all it needed to do was place the collective political rights in trust to vest when the Jews attained what they needed to become a stable democratic Jewish state. A trust agreement is normally self-executing. Why unnecessarily stir up the Arabs?

W E Brand  Chad • 3 years ago

"...without affecting the civil or religious rights of the non Jewish communities..." The French wanted to amend the savings clause to add political rights but the others objected. The collective political rights were recognized as belonging to the Jews. But "civil rights" includes the right to vote in an election held by a government set up by the Jews and administered by them. That is the meaning of "national rights" or "collective rights to political self-determination". So the Jews were recognized as owning the collective political rights and both the Jews and non Jews kept their individual political rights.

Enzo  Chad • 3 years ago

I am sorry but you are TOTALLY wrong. The 1917 Balfour Declaration enshrined verbatim in the 1920 San Remo Resolution by the League of Nations, very clearly states:

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a NATIONAL HOME FOR THE JEWISH PEOPLE, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice THE CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS RIGHTS OF THE EXISTING NON-JEWISH COMMUNITIES IN PALESTINE or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".

So, in answer to your WRONG arguments 1) the 1920 Resolution assigned the WHOLE MANDATE OF PALESTINE, including present day Kingdom of Jordan, to the establishment of a NATIONAL HOME for the Jewish people. Only in 1922 under pressure from Great Britain, the Land assigned to a future Jewish State was limited on the east, to the River Jordan, to accomodate east of the River in the approx. 75% remainder of the Mandate of Palestine, a Sheikhdom of Trans-Jordan given as reward to Hussein, the Sharif of the Mecca and King of Hejaz (Arabia) who was escaping the advancing hordes of the desert marauder Ibn Al-Saud.

2) The Balfour Declaration enshrined in both 1920 and 1922 League of Nations Resolutions speaks of a NATIONAL HOME only for the Jewish People, while for the NON-JEWISH COMMUNITIES in Palestine it only guarantees and specifically mention their CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS RIGHTS but not their National Rights.

A NATIONAL HOME of a people is quite obviously its NATIONAL STATE. Civil and Religious Rights have nothing to do with National Rights in Palestine that are reserved ONLY for the Jews of the world. Kapish?

Michael Farmer  Enzo • a year ago

You really don't understand English and its meaning do you, Enzo?

Rachmaninov Dwek  Chad • 4 years ago

Class A Mandates by definition vis a vis the League of Nations Charter are territories read for independence but in need of temporary administrative mentoring. That the League consigned Mandatory Palestine AS a Class A is how "Jewish State" is derived from "Jewish National Home." Moreover it was Class Sui Generis with Arabs not even mentioned as an afterthought. While the Mandate named the Jewish Agency as the indigenous governing entity it laid out absolutely no equivalent for Arabs. Jews were permitted to immigrate at will regardless whether Arabs agreed or not. The League provided two Class A Mandates for Arabs and if local Arabs did not like living in a Jewish nation they were free to migrate into those two Arab Class As.

simon  Rachmaninov Dwek • 4 years ago

Jews were permitted to emigrate at will. White Paper. Please renew your library card. Avalon research at Yale is a great resource for documents.

Enzo  simon • 3 years ago

The first White Paper (Churchill White Paper) of 1922 has absolutely nothing to do with limiting Jewish immigration and one of the provisions thereby included is the following:
'During the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community, now numbering 80,000... it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on the sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.'

The White Paper that limited Jewish immigration in Palestine is the 1939 White Paper.

Garrett Rutledge  Chad • 4 years ago

Basically true. The Mandate's purpose was to facilitate the creation of a bi-national state. The Jewish homeland was to exist within this state. The Jewish state was created after Arab nationalists rejected both the bi-national option and the UN partition plan. That being said, the Arabs are due no more of what was Mandate Palestine than what was granted to them when the Trans-Jordan portion of the territories was made into the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. No other portion of the territories may be set aside for the creation of a solely Arab state or country without the consent of a dully elected representative of the Jewish people; which would be the government of the State of Israel.

LJ  Garrett Rutledge • 4 years ago

Wrong. The Jews were given the right to immigrate to Palestine and apply for Palestinian citizenship. But it was specifically stated that the rights of the non-Jewish citizens of Palestine were not to be violated. They were never given Palestine, only the right to llive there. They have since taken, by force, a huge potion of land and made it exclusive to Jewish citizens, no Arabs allowed. This is a direct violation of the original agreement. They have no legal right to that land, whatever they might tell you. And Article 80 does not apply exclusively to the Jews. It doesn't even mention them. This is an attempt to twist and distort the historical facts to give people the impression that the illegal Jewish settlements are legal. And it is all in response to the UN recognizing the State of Palestine, something Israel very much does not want to have happen.

HH  LJ • 4 years ago

How can you say "no Arabs allowed" when 1.5 million Arabs live alongside Jews, Christians, Druze and Ba'hais in Israel?

The Apartheid of South Africa did not grant blacks rights; in Israel, Arabs are MPs and on the Supreme Court.

atworld  HH • 3 years ago

And who said that Arab israelus should be expelled from israel and "deported" to the West Bank?"

Oren Wysocki • a day ago

Mazel Tov! Now lets ask the arabs to leave since they have claimed in overwhelming numbers to oppose any Jewish nation that safeguards the rights and property of Jews. In G-d I trust.

Michael Farmer • a year ago

"It should be common knowledge that under the Mandate, all of Palestine
was reserved exclusively for the establishment of the Jewish National
Home and future independent Jewish State, as was previously decided at
the San Remo Peace Conference that took place in April 1920."?

Wrong!

Balfour gave Jews 'A' home 'IN' Palestine ..... not 'OF' Palestine. Israel is already that home. Your common misreading (deliberate?) of the Mandate is noted.

Fivish  Michael Farmer • a year ago

Balfour intended that all of Palestine become the jewish national home. This was confirmed by Balfour’s grandson at Balfour house at a meeting which i attended.

salubrius  Michael Farmer • a year ago

If they intended only a part of Palestine, the relatively small population of Jews at the time would not have been of concern, either to Samuels or Sacher. Evidence of the intent of the settlors of a trust is the guiding light to its interpretation. See Tentative US Proposal of January 21, 1919.

Michael Farmer  salubrius • a year ago

Read the Mandate ..... not a Jewish wish list!

US? Irrelevant to Balfour.

YJ Draiman • 3 years ago

Palestine Liberation Organization:
The Original Palestine National Charter
(1964)

This Covenant was written by the first PLO Chairman, Ahmed Shukeiry. This version reflects the Pan-Arab nationalism which can be clearly seen in the emphasis on the view of Palestine as part of an Arab collective homeland. The pan-Arab objective in the Arab-Israeli conflict is rather pervasive – the destruction of Israel. However, noticeably missing is the call for a Palestinian state and the subordinate position of the Palestinians in what is expressed as a battle for their rights and homeland.
We. The Palestinian Arab people, who waged fierce and continuous battles to safeguard its homeland, to defend its dignity and honour, and who offered, all through the years, continuous caravans of immortal martyrs, and who wrote the noblest pages of sacrifice, offering and giving.
We. The Palestinian Arab people, who faced the forces of evil, injustice and aggression against whom the forces of International Zionism and colonialism conspired and worked to displace it, dispossess it from its homeland to realize its freedom and dignity and who has determined to amass its forces and mobilize its efforts and capabilities in order to continue its struggle and to move forward on the path of holy war until complete and final victory has been attained.
We. The Palestinian Arab people, depending on our right of self-defense and the complete restoration of our lost homeland – a right that has been recognized by international covenants and common practices including the charter of the United Nations and in implementation of the principles of human rights’ and comprehending the international political relations, with its various ramifications and limits, and considering the past experiences in all that pertains to the causes of the catastrophe (al-Nakba), and the means to face it.
And embarking from the Palestinian Arab reality, and for the sake of the honour of the Palestinian individual and his right to free and dignified life;
And realizing the national grave responsibility placed upon our shoulders, for the sake of all this.
We. The Palestinian Arab people, dictate and declare this Palestinian National Covenant and vow to realize it.
Article 1. Palestine is an Arab homeland bound by strong national ties to the rest of the Arab Countries and which together form the large Arab homeland.
Article 2. Palestine with its boundaries at the time of the British Mandate is a regional indivisible unit.
Article 3. The Palestinian Arab people has the legitimate right to its homeland and is an inseparable part of the Arab Nation. It shares the sufferings and aspirations of the Arab Nation and its struggle for freedom, sovereignty, progress and unity.
Article 4. The people of Palestine determines its destiny when it completes the liberation of its homeland in accordance with its own wishes and free will and choice.
Article 5. The Palestinian personality is a permanent and genuine characteristic that does not disappear. It is transferred from fathers to sons.
Article 6. The Palestinians are those Arab citizens who were living normally in Palestine up to 1947, whether they remained or were expelled. Every child who was born to a Palestinian parent after this date whether in Palestine or outside is a Palestinian.
Article 7. Jews of Palestinian origin are considered Palestinians if they are willing to live peacefully and loyally in Palestine.
Article 8. Bringing up Palestinian youth in Arab and nationalist manner is a fundamental national duty. All means of guidance education and enlightenment should be utilized to introduce the youth to its homeland in a deep spiritual way that will constantly and firmly bind them together.
Article 9. Doctrines whether political social or economic, shall not occupy the people of Palestine from the primary duty of liberating their homeland. All Palestinians constitute one national front and work with all their feelings and spiritual and material potentialities to free their homeland.
Article 10. Palestinians have three mottoes: National unity, National mobilization; and liberation. Once liberation is completed, the people of Palestine shall choose for its public life whatever political economic or social system they want.
Article 11. The Palestinian people firmly believe in Arab unity, and in order to play its role in realizing this goal, it must, at this stage of its struggle preserve its Palestinian personality and all its constituents. It must strengthen the consciousness of its existence and stand against any attempt or plan that may weaken or disintegrate its personality.
Article 12. Arab unity and the liberation of Palestine are two complementary goals; each prepares for the attainment of the other. Arab unity leads to the liberation of Palestine, and the liberation of Palestine leads to Arab unity. Working for both must go side by side.
Article 13. The destiny of the Arab Nation and even the essence of Arab existence are firmly tied to the destiny of the Palestine question; from this firm bond stems the effort and struggle of the Arab Nation to liberate Palestine. The People of Palestine assumes the vanguard role in achieving this sacred national goal.
Article 14. The liberation of Palestine from an Arab view point, is a national duty. Its responsibilities fall upon the entire Arab Nation, Governments and peoples, the Palestinian people being in the foreground. For this purpose the Arab Nation must mobilize its military spiritual and material potentialities, specifically, it must give to the Palestinian Arab people all possible support and backing and place at its disposal all opportunities and means to enable them to perform their roles in liberating their homeland.
Article 15. The liberation of Palestine, from a spiritual view point, prepares for the Holy Land, an atmosphere of tranquillity and peace, in which all the Holy Places will be safeguarded, and the free worship and visit to all will be guaranteed, without any discrimination of race, colour, tongue, or religion. For all this, the Palestinian people look forward to the support of all spiritual forces in the world.
Article 16. The liberation of Palestine from an international view point is a defensive act necessitated by the demands of self-defense as stated in the charter of the United Nations. That is why the people of Palestine desiring to befriend all nations which love freedom, justice, and peace, is looking forward for their support in restoring the legitimate situation to Palestine, establishing peace and security in its territory, and enable its people to exercise national sovereignty and freedom.
Article 17. The Partitioning of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of Israel are illegal and false regardless of the loss of time, because they were contrary to the wish of the Palestine people and its natural right to its homeland, and in violation of the basic principles embodied in the charter of the United Nations, foremost among which is the right to self-determination.
Article 18. The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate system and all that has been based upon them are considered fraud. The claims of historic and spiritual ties, ties between Jews and Palestine are not in agreement with the facts of history or with the true basis of sound statehood. Judaism because it is a divine religion is not a nationality with independent existence. Furthermore the Jews are not one people with an independent personality because they are citizens of the countries to which they belong.
Article 19. Zionism is a colonialist movement in its inception, aggressive and expansionist in its goals, racist and segregationist in its configurations and fascist in its means and aims. Israel in its capacity as the spearhead of this destructive movement and the pillar for colonialism is a permanent source of tension and turmoil in the Middle East in particular and to the international community in general. Because of this the People of Palestine are worthy of the support and sustenance of the community of nations.
Article 20. The causes of peace and security and the needs of right and justice demand from all nations, in order to safeguard true relationships among peoples, and to maintain the loyalty of citizens to their homeland, to consider Zionism an illegal movement and to outlaw its presence and activities.
Article 21. The Palestine people believes in the principle of justice, freedom, sovereignty, self-determination, human dignity, and the right of peoples to practice these principles. It also supports all international efforts to bring about peace on the basis of justice and free international co-operation.
Article 22. The People of Palestine believe in peaceful coexistence on the basis of legal existence, for there can be no coexistence with aggression, nor can there be peace with occupation and colonialism.
Article 23. In realizing the goals and principles of this Covenant the Palestine Liberation Organization carries out its complete role to liberate Palestine in accordance with the fundamental law of this Organization.
Article 24. This Organization does not exercise any regional sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields.
Article 25. The Organization is encharged with the movement of the Palestinian people in its struggle to liberate its homeland in all liberational, organizational, political, and financial matters, and in all other needs of the Palestine Question in the Arab and international spheres.
Article 26. The Liberation Organization co-operates with all Arab governments each according to its ability, and does not interfere in the internal affairs of any state.
Article 27. The Organization shall have its flag, oath and national anthem. All this shall be resolved in accordance with a special system.
Article 28. The Fundamental Law for the Palestine Liberation Organization is attached to this Covenant. This Law defines the manner of establishing the Organization, its organs, institutions, the specialities of each one of them, and all the needed duties thrust upon it in accordance with this Covenant.
Article 29. This Covenant cannot be amended except by two-thirds majority of the National Council of the Palestine Liberation Organization in a special session called for this purpose.

salubrius  YJ Draiman • a year ago

The 1964 PLO Charter was drafted in Moscow by the KGB. They invented the so called "Palestinian People" for two reasons. 1. To change the Jewish People to Goliath and the newly invented Palestinian People to David. 2. At the same time Russian Diplomats were pushing the ICCPR Convention throught the UN which provided that any "People" had the collective right to political self-determination. Up to that time the term "Palestinians" referred to Jews in Palestine. One member of the Executive Board of the PLO admitted in an interview in 1973 to the Dutch Newspaper Trouw that there is no such thing as the "Palestinian People" It is just a political ploy. This is confirmed by the highest ranking defector from the Soviet bloc who said the existence of a Palestinian People was confirmed only by the first 422 members of the so called Palestine National Council, each hand picked by the KGB.

YJ Draiman • 3 years ago

The Mandate for Palestine aka Greater Israel as it Pertains to Jerusalem and the Old City

The rights granted to the Jewish people in the 1920 San Remo Conference confirmed by the August 1920 Treaty of Sevres and Lausanne, and adopted and incorporated by the Mandate for Palestine relating to the establishment of the Jewish national home were to be given effect in all parts and regions of the Palestine territory. No exception was made for Jerusalem and its Old City, which were not singled out for special reference in either the Balfour Declaration, the April1920 San Remo Treaty or the Mandate for Palestine, other than to call for the preservation of existing rights in the Holy Places. As concerns the Holy Places, including those located in the Old City, specific obligations and responsibilities were imposed on the Mandatory.
It follows that the legal rights of the claimants to sovereignty over the Old City of Jerusalem similarly derive from the decisions of the Principal Allied Powers in the 1920 San Remo conference and from the terms of the Mandate for Palestine adopted and approved by the Council of the League of Nations. In evaluating the validity of the claims of Israel relating to the Old City, the Council decision is of great significance from the perspective of the rights and obligations that it created under international law which the UN cannot supersede or modify without the consent of the parties.
The League of Nations and the UN can only recommend a resolution, in order for a resolution to be binding it must be agreed to and executed by the parties, since the Arabs rejected outright the partition and most other resolutions, all those resolutions are void and have no standing whatsoever.
In the view of Oxford international law professor Ian Brownlie, "in many instances the rights of parties to a dispute derive from legally significant acts, or a treaty concluded very long ago". As a result of these "legally significant acts", there are legal as well as historical ties between the State of Israel and the Old City of Jerusalem.
The intellectual ties were further solidified by the official opening of the Hebrew University on 1 April 1925 in Jerusalem, attended by many dignitaries, including the University’s founding father, Dr. Chaim Weizmann, Field Marshall Allenby, Lord Balfour, Professor William Rappard and Sir Herbert Samuel, among many other distinguished guests. According to Dr. Weizmann, addressing the dignitaries and some twelve thousand other attendees at this memorable event, the opening of the University in Jerusalem was "the distinctive symbol, as it is destined to be the crowning glory, of the National Home of the Jewish people which we are seeking to rebuild". The Faisal Weitzmann agreement of January 3, 1919 stated and agreed that the Jews would have Jerusalem and that the Muslim places of worship would be protected.
In addition to the legal, historical and intellectual heritage, in the words of Canadian scholar Dr. Jacques Paul Gauthier: "To attempt to solve the Jerusalem / Old City problem without taking into consideration the historical and religious facts is like trying to put together a ten thousand piece puzzle without the most strategic pieces of that puzzle". In his monumental work entitled Sovereignty Over the Old City of Jerusalem: A Study of the Historical, Religious, Political and Legal Aspects of the Question of the Old City, Dr. Gauthier offers an exhaustive review of these historical/spiritual/political/legal bonds, emphasizing the "extraordinary meaning" of the Old City of Jerusalem and the temple to the Jewish people.
Indeed, with respect to the question of the Old City, the historical facts and the res religiosae (or things involving religion) are rendered legally relevant by the decisions taken at the 1920 San Remo sessions of the Paris Peace Conference, together with the terms of the Mandate for Greater Israel aka Palestine. Notwithstanding the fact that historical, religious or other non-legal considerations may not be considered relevant or sufficient to support a legal claim normally in international law cases, these aspects of the issue of the city of Jerusalem are relevant in evaluating the claims of Israel and the Arab-Palestinians relating to sovereignty over the Old City, just as much or perhaps even more than over the entire State of Israel and the Holy Land, as noted.
YJ Draiman

YJ Draiman • 3 years ago

The Arab and Jewish-Israel’s Agreement of January 3, 1919 - Known as The King Faisal - Chaim Weizmann Agreement.

Faisal-Weizmann Agreement
Signed on January 3rd, 1919, the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement was an agreement between Jews and Arabs who both wished to set up their own nations in the Middle East.

Introduction

During the 1918-1919 Paris peace conference following World War I, the Emir Feisal, son of Hussein, Sherif of Mecca - representing the Arabs, signed an agreement with Dr Chaim Weizmann - representing the Jewish people (who became later the first president of Israel) supporting the rights of the Jews in Palestine. This agreement has not been annulled and its terms should be enforced. Neither the League of Nations, The UN or the ICJ cannot modify this agreement between the Arabs and Jews. Only the parties to the agreement can amend or modify the agreement.

Agreement Between Emir Feisal ibn Hussein and Dr. Weizmann | 3 Jan 1919

His Royal Highness the Emir FEISAL, representing and acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of Hedjaz, and Dr. CHAIM WEIZMANN, representing and acting on behalf of the Zionist Organization. mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realizing that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations is through the closest possible collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine, and being desirous further of confirming the good understanding which exists between them, have agreed upon the following Articles:

ARTICLE I
The Arab State and Palestine in all their relations and undertakings shall be controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in the respective territories.

ARTICLE II
Immediately following the completion of the deliberations of the Peace Conference, the definite boundaries between the Arab State and Palestine shall be determined by a Commission to be agreed upon by the parties hereto.

ARTICLE III
In the establishment of the Constitution and Administration of Palestine all such measures shall be adopted as will afford the fullest guarantee for carrying into effect the British Government's Declaration of the 2nd of November, 1917.

ARTICLE IV
All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures and measures the Arab peasant and tenant farms shall be protected in their rights and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development.

ARTICLE V
No regulation nor law shall be made prohibiting or interfering in any way with the free exercise of religion; and further the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference shell forever be allowed. No religious test shall ever be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

ARTICLE VI
The Mohammedan Holy Places shall be under Mohammedan control.

ARTICLE VII
The Zionist Organization proposes to send to Palestine a Commission of experts to make a survey of the economic possibilities of the country, and to report upon the best means for its development. The Zionist Organization will place the aforementioned Commission at the disposal of the Arab State for the purpose of a survey of the economic possibilities of the Arab State and to report upon the best means for its development. The Zionist Organization will use Its best efforts to assist the Arab State in providing the means for developing the natural resources and economic possibilities thereof.

ARTICLE VIII
The parties hereto agree to act in complete accord and harmony on all matters embraced herein before the Peace congress.

ARTICLE IX
Any matters of dispute which my arise between the contracting parties shall be referred to the British Government for arbitration.

Given under our hand at LONDON.

ENGLAND, the THIRD day of

JANUARY, ONE THOUSAND NINE

HUNDRED AND NINETEEN.

Chaim-Weizmann.
Feisal ibn-Hussein.

W E Brand • 3 years ago

If you can find a copy of "A Jewish Palestine: the Jewish case for a British trust", read it. In it Harry Sacher who had written the first draft of the Balfour Declaration, described five methods of obtaining a Jewish Palestine and selected placing the collective political rights to self-determination in trust for the Jews until the Jews in Palestine were a majority in the territory they would rule and capable of assuming the duties of a state. It was published by the Zionist Organization in London in 1919.

Y J Draiman • 3 years ago

The Law of Return is for The Jews, the option to return to Greater Israel and The Arab-Arab-Arab-Palestinians to leave Greater Israel and return to the Arab countries they originated from. The Arab-Arab-Arab-Palestinians should move to the Million plus Jewish homes confiscated by the Arab countries from the expelled Jewish people and the 120,440 sq. km. of Real property the Arabs confiscated from the million plus Jews and their children expelled from Arab countries. That is the only viable alternative.
Face it and stop hallucinating, once and for all. There will never be an Arab-Arab-Palestinian State in Greater Israel West of the Jordan River (Judea and Samaria). Jerusalem the United Eternal Capital of the Jewish people.
YJ Draiman

Sending thousands of rockets indiscriminately into civilian centers and tunneling into Israel to kill civilians and sending suicide bombers is not an obstacle to peace but building homes is? Are the U.S. & E.U. going on tour as a new comedy duo?

The Jewish heart and mind is eternally connected to Jerusalem and Israel for thousands of years

"For three thousand years, Jerusalem has been the center of Jewish hope and longing. No other city has played such a dominant role in the history, culture, religion and consciousness of a people as has Jerusalem in the life of Jewry and Judaism. Throughout centuries of exile, Jerusalem remained alive in the hearts of Jews everywhere as the focal point of Jewish history, the symbol of ancient glory, spiritual fulfillment and modern renewal. This heart and soul of the Jewish people engenders the thought that if you want one simple word to symbolize all of Jewish history, that word would be 'Jerusalem.' "

"Every Jew has a spark in his soul from the light of God above that illuminates his way during difficult times. And when it seems to him that he is lost and that there is no way out, the spark flares and lights his way. This is the little jug of oil that is revealed in time to save the Jew in times of despair and to light up his life in desperate times."

LEV • 3 years ago

....Законопроект, внесенный в Конгресс США Илеана Рос-Лехтинен, безусловно, надлежащим курсом действий, чтобы следовать. Незаконность ООН должна быть резко осудили и остановился на своем пути с помощью соответствующего карательной меры, точно так, как предложил Рос-Лехтинен. Ее законопроект будет еще более достойным, если бы это было включить прямую ссылку на статью 80 и тот факт, что ООН не обладает юридической силой создать государство, либо выделить территорию другого государства для этой цели, осуществляемый через окольных или тайных средств принимать ходатайство заявителя о приеме в члены всемирной организации.
Как прекратить безрассудство ООН, Европейских советов, ЛАГ и прочих беззастенчиво лгущих НАРОДАМ лжеполитиков.

Howard Weisberg  LEV • 3 years ago

At last -- a coherent comment. I agree with everything you say.

Joseph Samuels • 4 years ago

The hypocrisy of the UN continues unabated.

Wayne • 4 years ago

Well, after studying the Bible for over 50 years, both Old and New Testaments, I would emphatically state that the Bible is the most accurate historical document known to man. Take the time to read the well respected historian and reporter, Josephus who's writings concur and confirm much of Scripture. The Bible has been used by archaeologist, historians, as well as theologians and found to be the most accurate document we have. With that said, God is very clear that HIs covenant promise of the land was to be to Abraham's descendents through his son Isaac who was born to his wife (accepted of God as his wife) and not Ismael who was the son of Hagar. "And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee! And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year." Balfour recognized the extent of the land that God had made promise to Abraham, to Isaac, to Jacob, and reminded Moses as He took him up on Mount Nebo and showed him the land. Why the political correctness, why the misinformation??? When will we truly seek truth and believe the truth and have the courage to state the truth. The land rightfully, by a far greater authority than the UN or the US or any other government belongs to the descendants of Abraham! I stand amazed that people are unable to see the promise of God to not only scatter Israel because of her disobedience, but also His promise to bless her and bring her back into the land for an everlasting covenant. It is remarkable and should cause many to sit up and pay attention to what is going on. Through the prophet Zechariah, God states, "Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem." (Zechariah 12:2) How true that is today! Jerusalem is a cup of trembling to the world, that little sliver of land, 14 % of what God promised!!! Pray for the peace of Jerusalem and may God help us see truth! It is not far from us!

atworld  Wayne • 3 years ago

Justifying Occupation by a God that loves one and rejects another? What kind of a God is this? Then you tell me Christianity and Jesus love us?

Michael Farmer  Wayne • a year ago

"I would emphatically state that the Bible is the most accurate historical document known to man."

I especially like the creation of the Dinosaurs .... as you say.

Wallace Edward Brand  Wayne • 3 years ago

There is nothing immoral about occupying a land in which you have the unrestricted right of settlement any more than occupying a home you own. This is territory that was held in trust under the Palestine Mandate since 1920 until the trust vested. Part of the territory vested in 1948 when the Jews attained a majority population within defined boundaries shortly thereafter designated as an Armistice Line. The Jews established unified control and met the other obligations of sovereign states later codified in the 1933 Montevideo Convention. When they also, in 1967, attained unified control over the remainder of the territory west of the Jordan, the remainder of the trust rights gave the Jews legal dominion over the political rights of self-determination -- i.e. the right to set up a government and administer it. There is no obligation to exercise sovereignty over any territory. The Jews haven't exercised sovereignty, as yet over Judea and Samaria.

Sp • 4 years ago

A few days ago Australia's Foreign Minister Julie Bishop released an interview to The Times of Israel suggesting that, contrary to conventional diplomatic wisdom, the settlements may not be illegal under international law. In these last few years a growing number of politicians and scholars have expressed similar positions. Many of them argue that the results of the 1920's San Remo Conference and more than this the inclusion of the principles contained in the Balfour Declaration in the text of the Mandate of Palestine, assured to the Jewish people the exclusive right to create their "national home" on "the whole country of Palestine, not a mere part of it".

In this respect, the Levy Report - released on 9 July 2012 by a special committee appointed in late January 2012 by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu - has represented a sort of "watershed". It clarified that "with the establishment of the United Nations in 1945, the principle of recognizing the validity of existing rights of states acquired under various mandates, including of course the rights of Jews to settle in the Land of Israel by virtue of the above documents, was determined in article 80 of its charter". According to the Levy Report, Article 80 of the UN Charter implicitly recognizes the Mandate for Palestine.

The late Eugene Rostow, former dean of Yale Law School, also known for being a key draftee of the UN resolution 242, further clarified these aspects explaining that "a trust" - as in Article 80 of the UN Charter - "does not end because the trustee dies". Rostow's argument, which is repeated in the Levy report, is that although the League of Nations had ceased to exist, the commitments of the League of Nations remain binding.

These claims are marred by several inaccuracies, starting from the fact that the term "national home" had no mutually agreed upon meaning or scope and that the British government was under no definite obligation, since the Mandate made any Jewish immigration subject to "suitable conditions" and contained safeguards for the rights and position of the non-Jewish communities.

Furthermore, as David Ben-Gurion clarified in July 1947 in front of the UNSCOP commission: "The Mandate, in fact, does not exist because it was violated by the Mandatory. We are not in favour of renewing it. [...] we say that the original intention and the need, and what in our conviction is just, should be decided upon by the United Nations [...] I said we do not ask for a Mandate any more, so it is not a question. The question does not arise on the Mandate".

Also the assertion that article 80 of the UN Charter implicitly recognizes the Mandate for Palestine is more complex than often claimed. One of the legal advisors to the Jewish Agency, Jacob Robinson, published a book in 1947 that presented a historical account of the Palestine Question and the UN. He explained that when the Jewish Agency learned that the Allied Powers had discussed at the Yalta Conference (February 1945) a new system of international supervision to supersede the system of mandates, the Agency decided to submit a formal request to the San Francisco Conference (April-June 1945) to obtain a safeguarding clause in the UN Charter. The proposed clause would have prevented a trusteeship agreement from altering the Jewish right to nationhood secured by the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate for Palestine. The UN Conference ignored the Agency's request and stipulated in article 80 of the Charter that the UN organization did have the necessary power to conclude trusteeship agreements that could alter existing rights held under a mandate.

Robinson tried to portray a legal setback as a victory and make everyone think that Article 80 of the Charter accomplished the Agency's stated objective. Indeed, the final text adopted by the working paper for international trusteeship contained an exception that allowed trusteeship agreements to do exactly what the Jewish Agency had tried to prohibit. In Article 80's words: "Except as may be agreed upon in individual trusteeship arrangements placing each territory under the trusteeship system, nothing in this chapter should be construed in and of itself to alter in any manner the rights of any state or any peoples in any territory".

Article 1 of General Assembly resolution 24(I) reserved the right of the UN to decide not to assume any function or power of the League of Nations. On the 19th March 1948, during the 271st meeting of the Security Council, US Ambassador Warren Austin cited UN General Assembly resolution 24(I) and pointed out: "The United Nations does not automatically fall heir to the responsibilities either of the League of Nations or of the Mandatory Power in respect of the Palestine Mandate. The record seems to us entirely clear that the United Nations did not take over the League of Nations Mandate system".

On top of all these considerations, the above mentioned thesis of "exclusivity", besides being unjustified from an historical point of view - Palestine did not belong in an exclusive way to one single population in its entire history - is incorrect also from the legal perspective imposed since the early stage by London. Hubert Young, an important figure of the Foreign Office, wrote in November 1920 that the commitment made by London "in respect of Palestine is the Balfour Declaration constituting it a National Home for the Jewish People". Lord Curzon corrected him: "No. 'Establishing a National Home in Palestine for the Jewish people' - a very different proposition".

The British White Paper of June 1922 - the first document that officially clarified the interpretation of the Mandate's text - clarified that the Balfour Declaration does "not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded 'in Palestine'". Furthermore, it stressed - and this is perhaps the most relevant aspect - that the "Zionist congress" that took place in Carlsbad in September 1921 had officially accepted that "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development".

It is only in light on these clarifications that the preamble as well as Article 2 of the Mandate text can and should be understood. It is noteworthy that Zionist consent to such interpretation was requested, and received, before the Mandate was confirmed in July 1922. In Weizmann's words: "It was made clear to us that confirmation of the Mandate would be conditional on our acceptance of the policy as interpreted in the White Paper [of 1922], and my colleagues and I therefore had to accept it, which we did, though not without some qualms".

Israel's right to defend itself against fanaticism is something that any person interested in peace cannot but support. Equally true is that the growing attempt to justify the colonization of the Palestinian territories through a problematic interpretation of history, international law, and international consensus is a dangerous threat that requires better public understanding. (e-IR)

Michael Farmer  sp • a year ago

Why attempt to re-write Balfour? Naughty.

Wallace Edward Brand  sp • 3 years ago

The term national home did have an agreed meaning that was not widely published to avoid stirring up the Arabs. The British revealed the meaning in a Foreign Office memorandum dated December 19, 1917. The Americans revealed the same meaning in the American Proposal by the American Commission to Negotiate the Peace, a report dated January 21, 1919. Both of these provided for a Jewish State after the Jews had attained a population majority and the capability to exercise sovereignty.

Doreen murgatroyd  sp • 4 years ago

Lots of words. None of them explain why it would be that the Allies would reward the very people whom they fought against - most ottoman Arabs in Palestine - with Palestine itself. Makes absolutely no sense.

Jouni Suninen  sp • 4 years ago

>>>>since the Mandate made any Jewish immigration subject to "suitable conditions" and contained safeguards for the rights and position of the non-Jewish communities. <<<

The Mandate however did only give Britain the right to facilitate Jewish immigration - not hinder it. So, if "suitable conditions" did not exist then Jews had to do immigration without Britain&#039s support.It would still be legal.

The Jewish national home was of course the Palestine Mandate where Jews had self-governing institutions within its borders. Arabs did not have the same autonomy within Palestine Mandate. How could it be possible to have autonomy in the same area for two different peoples? Impossible. Autonomy needs an area where it can be exercised.

George Peters • 5 years ago

Dr. Abraham Weizfeld. No not true. Hagar was a concubine not a wife. Ishmael is descendant but not inheritor.
But the lineage, and all that was associated with it - was passed on to Isaac, and not to Ishmael. My belief is that the Muslims never got over this (they have very long memories), and so have constantly and venally appropriated much of Jewish history as their own.
It is not a co-incidence that one of the most common Muslim names is Ibrahim.

Catrin Stella  George Peters • 5 years ago

Ishmael was the son of agar the slave of Sarah, wife of Abraham. For the unbelief of Sarah she had give Agar to Abraham for have the Son of the promise. But this wa not the Will of God. God gave them Isaac HE was the Son of the Promise and he generated the People of God "Israel". if you read in the Bible, the filistin and many nations that was in the promised Land, to Israel was commanded to destruct them completely, But they don’t, and know They have the results! This nation’s was the descendants of Ishmael son of Hagar.

Natasha Langman • 5 years ago

Dear Abraham Weizfeld,
Jewish Rights spelled clearly!
There is NO room for misinterpretation what "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" other then creating of a Jewish Nation means!
In Article 22 in the "Covenant of the League of Nations" it says:

"Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."

The "Mandate for Palestine" was created on 24th April 1922 from the LEAGUE OF NATIONS and referring directly to Article 22 of the "Covenant of the League of Nations". The Mandate was given over on 15th May 1948 to the modern State of Israel. Israel started to exist again. The intentions and International Law of the LEAGUE OF NATIONS to build a Nation "Eretz Israel" were fullfilled.

Abraham Weizfeld wrote "A national home for the Jewish people is not a Nation-State."

salubrius  Natasha Langman • a year ago

Paragraph 4 of League of Nations Covenant Article 22 was to apply to Syria and Iraq but not to Palestine

salubrius  Natasha Langman • 2 years ago

@Natasha Langman: Paragraph 4 of UN Charter Article 22 is expressly referred to in the San Remo Resolution as applying to Syria and Iraq but the succeeding paragraph in the Resolution applying to Palestine is silent about paragraph 4. Under the legal doctrine "Inclusio unias est exclusio alterias" that means that paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant does NOT apply to Palestine.

@Weizfeld: Evidence of the intentions of the settlors of a trust are the lodestar for its interpretation. This evidence includes the paper of Howard Samuels entitled The Future of Palestine written in 1914, a British Foreign Office Memo explaining the Balfour Declaration issued the month following its publication, and the Tentative Proposal of the United States delivered on January 21, 1919 at the Paris Peace Talks. See also, the Memorandum of the Jewish Agency in April 1945 to the UN Charter drafting committee written by Chaim Weizmann listing the rights under the Mandate for Palestine and their source that needed to be saved in the UN Charter.

Chad  Natasha Langman • 4 years ago

IN Palestine, not ALL and certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire does not say Jewish communities.

Abraham Weizfeld is right. There is no mention of state

Hartley Macklin  Chad • 4 years ago

Chad,
The mandate system was set up to have more experienced countries help birth new states.

Certainly the anti semitism in Britain gave birth to many illegal obstacles, but the mandate was clearly that homeland would come to mean state. In fact the treaty often refers to "development of the country".

It also clearly states that (article 5) "The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power."

No Palestine Territory. That is very clear.

The Allies, and later Britain were to hold the land in a sort of "Trust", with the end result that the Mandatory would hand over the administration to the Zionist, or clearer the new government they helped set up.

You seem to be stuck on the word "in" when your read "in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people".

They don't say "inside" Palestine, or "within", they write "in". That is clearly meaning the land that maps referred to as the territory of Palestine.

You know that in 1920, Mandatory Palestine included what is now Jordan. That 76% portion of the land mandated to be returned to the Jews was broken off and ceded (illegally) to the Arabs. So even if we take your meaning, the tiny sliver, the minority portion of the larger Palestine was all that was returned to the Jews.

You also seem to want to center on the the protection of the rights of the existing non-Jewish communities.

You must know that unique to Israel and in contrast to the most advanced democracies -- the Jewish state gives the languages and religions of its various minorities official status. Thus, Arabic is an official language alongside Hebrew, and Muslim and Christian holidays are considered official holidays.
Non-Jews in Israel enjoy the exact same civil rights as Jews. Israel is unique among the middle east countries created by the Mandate system, and kept that promise.

Michael Farmer  Hartley Macklin • a year ago

"They don't say "inside" Palestine, or "within", they write "in". That is
clearly meaning the land that maps referred to as the territory of
Palestine."

Your comprehension is not 20/20.

dr. abraham Weizfeld • 6 years ago

"A Pan-Syrian Congress, meeting in Damascus, had declared an independent state of Syria on 8 March 1920.[6] The new state included Syria, Palestine, Lebanon and portions of northern Mesopotamia which had been set aside under the Sykes-Picot Agreement for an independent Arab state, or confederation of states. King Faisal was declared the head of state. At the same time Prince Zeid, Faisal's brother, was declared regent of Mesopotamia.
The San Remo conference was hastily convened. Great Britain and France both agreed to recognize the provisional independence of Syria and Mesopotamia, while "reluctantly" claiming mandates for their administration. Palestine was composed of the Ottoman administrative districts of southern Syria. Under customary international law, premature recognition of its independence would be a gross affront to the government of the newly declared parent state. It could have been construed as a belligerent act of intervention without any League of Nations sanction.[7] In any event, its provisional independence was not mentioned although it continued to be designated as a Class A Mandate. ... The decisions of the San Remo conference confirmed the mandate allocations of the First Conference of London (February 1920). The San Remo Resolution adopted on 25 April 1920 incorporated the Balfour Declaration of 1917. It and Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations were the basic documents upon which the Mandate for Palestine was constructed.[9] Britain received the mandate for Palestine and Iraq; France gained control of Syria including present-day Lebanon." http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

San Remo conference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org

Abraham Weizfeld Evidently there is no mention of a "Jewish Israel".

Abraham Weizfeld: San Remo Resolution - April 25, 1920
It was agreed -
(a) To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the process-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine ... The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

Abraham Weizfeld A national home for the Jewish people is not a Nation-State. Even under the provisions of the Partition Plan Resolution 181 of the UN GA, the self-proclaimed State of Israel violates the boundaries set forth under the resolution. As for the recognition of the Palestine State, now acknowledged, if the Palestine State is not to be considered legal then the State of Israel would also have to be considered illegal, under international law.

Abraham Weizfeld: Furthermore what is called 'Eretz-Israel' is not a State in itself but quite specifically a Land, upon which there has always been multiple Nations co-existing.

W E Brand  dr. abraham Weizfeld • 3 years ago

The rights to statehood were put in trust until the Jewish population in Israel was ready to use them. They were intended by the settlors of the trust to vest when the Jews had attained a population majority in the territory they would rule, and the capability of exercising sovereignty. See 1933 Montevideo convention on the rights and duties of states that codifies required capabilities.

Jehudah Ben-Israel • 6 years ago

Clearly, the fundamental elements of international law that were set, at first, to avoid a conflict between Arab and Jew and then to resolve the Arab Israeli conflict have been:

San Remo Conference decisions, 1920
League of Nations decision, 1922
UN Charter, Article 80, 1945

The way to implement these have been designed and presented to the UN which passed, at its Security Council unanimously, UN Security Council 242, 1967

One only wonders, if the Muslim-Arabs are so adamant against these elements of international law, do they actually seek peace or rather Israel's demise...??

david hanson • 7 years ago

yes u hit the nail on the head. Now add the fact that G-D gave this land, all of it, to us. It is in the bible.

Also there is no such thing as a Palestinian, only an Arab who happens to be living in Israel. Tell it to Pres Obama.

salubrius  david hanson • a year ago

The key phrase is "Palestinian People". Anyone who lives in the Palestine territory can be called a "Palestinian". The preamble to the 1964 PLO Charter defines who the Arabs call Palestinians and that keeps changing. Under international law you must have an unchanging definition. There was an Arab People in 1922 and there still is, but Lord Curzon who succeeded Balfour agreed that the Arabs had been rejected in their claim for national rights to Palestine. Curzon was no friend of the Jews.

Watermark0n  david hanson • 2 years ago

There is no God.

truthseeker  david hanson • 4 years ago

If you think that the bible is an actual historical document,you need to have your head examined.

Dr. abraham Weizfeld  david hanson • 5 years ago

For sure David Hanson has not actually read the Torah (part of the old testament of the Protestant Bible).
The covenant with the prophet Abraham was for the descendents to live on the Land forever, and that includes the Arabs, since the first born Ishmael was of an Egyptian mother, Hajjar. Since polygamy was fashionable at the time, there is no priority to be given to the first wife Sarah, who was Sumarian in any case.

Yochanan M Hummasti  dr. abraham Weizfeld • 4 years ago

The Ishmaelites never were "Arabs" and in fact Ishmaelites intermarried with Arabs therefore it is erroneous to assert that the Arabs are Ishmael's descendants. It is more appropriate to say that some Arabs are descended from Ishmael than it is to say the all Arabs are descended from Ishmael. Guillaume's "The life of Muhammad", p. 46.
As to the Jewish National Home and the establishment of the modern state of Israel in Palestine under international law, the fact is when one reads the minutes from the San Remo Conference and the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924 the only conclusion one can come to is that the Mandate for Palestine was intended to facilitate the reconstitution of the ancient Jewish National Home and an Independent Jewish State in the area designated under the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement which included portions of the East "Bank" of the Jordan River up to the Hejaz Railway with a buffer zone between the railway and the Border of the Jewish National Home. Simply read Article 25 inserted in the Mandate for Palestine which was a temporary measure until such time as local conditions warranted Jewish settlement in the Eastern Portion of the Mandate Area. Emir Faisal specifically excluded the Western portion (west of the Hejaz Railway) of "Trans-Jordan" from the boundaries of the proposed Jewish State which he agreed to under the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement. Moreover, all he requested for his assistance in overthrowing the Ottoman Empire was an Independence for the Arabs from any foreign sovereign which he was given along with his family in the Mandate Areas of Iraq and Syria and included the Modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, from which they were kicked out since his Hashemite Family had ruled from Mecca since the 10th Century. Howard Grief has properly International Law on the subject and no one to date has presented a cogent argument which refutes his position!!!

Seina Owen • 7 years ago

This historical facts is absolutely necessary to release to those countries in favor of a Palestinian state. Even it is necessary information for the general public especially regarding the Jewish land rights to their Biblical land.

Renanah goldhar-gemeiner • 7 years ago

As I wrote to Howard upon receipt of this letter a few days ago: "Yeah Howard!"
Thank you for publishing this! Thank you Barry!
Renanah

YJ Draiman • 3 years ago

With The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law (Mazo Publishers, Jerusalem) Canadian-born Israeli constitutional scholar and lawyer Howard Grief has given us a book that shatters every myth, lie, misrepresentation and distortion employed over the 61 years of Israel's existence to negate the sovereign rights of the Jewish People to their national home.
It is a lengthy treatise - 660 pages plus a 50-page appendix - but the Jewish people's long and tortuous struggle to retrieve their stolen patrimony deserves nothing less than full disclosure. Anyone who has ever been at a loss to counter the slanders and calumnies that are the stock in trade of the Israel-bashers and anti-Semites on both the Left and Right will treasure every one of its 20 illuminating chapters.

Rooted in the premise that the best antidote to a myriad of small and medium sized fabrications is the exposure of the whole cloth from which they've been woven, The Legal Foundation lays bare two dominant myths that have shaped popular perspectives on Israel. The first is the fallacy that Jewish sovereignty over the land of Israel was the joint product of the 1947 United Nations Partition and the May 15th, 1948 termination of the British Mandate for Palestine.
In fact, as Grief points out, Jewish sovereignty in Palestine had been validated under international law 28 years earlier.
"The legal title of the Jewish People to the mandated territory of Palestine in all of its historical parts," he informs us, was first recognized on April 24, 1920 when the post-World War I Allied Supreme Council (Britain, France, Italy and Japan), meeting in San Remo, Italy, "converted the 1917 'Balfour Declaration' into a binding legal document." This was confirmed by the 1920 Treaty of Sevres and Lausanne.
How "binding" may be construed from the fact that its wording gave effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations and became incorporated into the Mandate for Palestine.
Indeed, the "San Remo Resolution," within which the Allied Supreme Council's decision is contained, constitutes what the author terms "the foundation document of the State of Israel, the legal existence of which is directly traceable from that document."
That the Jewish People were unable to exercise their sovereignty in Palestine for 28 years - it being assigned to the British Mandatory power as their de facto agent - did in no way detract from their 'de jure' rights to the land under international law during that interregnum.
In this thesis, Grief is ironically supported by both a passionate Zionist, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis and one of Zionism's most implacable opponents, post World War I British Foreign Secretary Lord George Nathaniel Curzon.
Brandeis believed that with the passage of the San Remo Resolution, the debate over who owned Palestine was effectively over. Curzon called the Resolution the "Magna Carta" of the Jewish People.
From the initial mis-attribution of Jewish sovereignty in Palestine to the 1947 Partition Plan rather than the 1920 San Remo Resolution, it was just a hop and a skip to a second major mis-representation of Israel's international legal status - the erroneous assumption that the Partition Plan and the May 1948 termination of the British Mandate somehow erased the Jewish People's rights to Palestine in all its historical parts and dimensions enunciated at San Remo, and implemented under the terms of the League of Nations Covenant.
Those "parts and dimensions" were defined inter alia, as including the
northwestern portions of the Golan and most of present day Jordan by the "Franco-British Boundary Convention" in Paris.
The presumptive cancellation of those rights, Grief submits, is thoroughly discredited by "the principle of acquired rights," codified in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the "Law of Treaties," and the "doctrine of estoppel."
The first, he asserts, insures that "the fundamental rights of the Jewish people did not lapse with the international process which brought them into existence. The second further guarantees that these rights cannot simply be abrogated or denied by those states which previously recognized their existence."
Taken together, they provide what the author terms a "definitive answer anyone who claims that Jewish legal rights and title of sovereignty over all of Palestine and the land of Israel did not continue after the end of the Mandate for Palestine...except in the allotted boundaries of the UN Partition Plan..."
Noteworthy among the states that wholeheartedly endorsed Jewish sovereignty over Palestine in all its "historical parts and dimensions" was the United States of America - the same U.S.A that today regards Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria as an illegal "occupation" of lands upon which it favors the creation of a Palestinian State.
The Obama administration and the Bush administration that preceded it are either unaware or have chosen to be unaware of the fact that the 1924 Anglo-American Convention on Palestine made the U.S. a "contracting party" to the Mandate, further reinforcing a unanimously passed Joint Resolution of the 67th Congress two years earlier, signed by President Warren G. Harding, recognizing a future Jewish State in "the whole of Palestine."
It needs to be borne in mind, Grief notes, that the Mandate for Palestine that was ceremoniously incorporated into U.S. law in 1924 "was a constitution for the projected Jewish state that made no provision for an Arab state and which especially prohibited the partition of the country."
Thus, he concludes, the fierce exception the U.S. has taken to Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria and its unremitting pressure for creation of a "Palestinian State" amount to a repudiation of its signature to the Anglo-American Convention on Palestine. It is in violation of American law and America's obligations under international law.

Jen Chant  YJ Draiman • 3 years ago

Your comment below sounds like a good basis for my PhD

"Mandate for Palestine that was ceremoniously incorporated into U.S. law in 1924 “was a constitution for the projected Jewish state that made no provision for an Arab state and which especially prohibited the partition of the country.”

Iyad Rafidi • 3 years ago

The article is deficient on on the following premises:

1. It ignores the rights provided in the mandate of the indigenous Palestinian people;

2. It infers the words "home for the Jewish people" to mean "homeland";

3. it ignores the fact that Palestine was declared as a "State" under a Class A mandate under tutelage in 1922 and it took legal effect in 1924. Palestine had its own courts etc;

4. It assumes that all Jews have a "connection" to the land of Palestine as stated in the mandate in complete contradiction to the facts.

It has been proven beyond doubt that:
1. Ashkenazi Jews some 75% of world Jewry are Judaized (convert Jews) see the work of Eran Elhaik Israeli Geneticist;http://gbe.oxfordjournals.o...

2. There was never a Roman exile of the Jews some 2000 years ago see the work of Israeli Historian The Myth of the Jewish Exile from the Land of Israel: A Demonstration of Irenic Scholarship Yuval, Israel Jacob;https://docs.google.com/fil... JeCa2Z7hV2szWm1VYmVlckE/edit

3. The Palestinian People are the Hebrews of the bible amongst other tribes of the biblical land as traced in the Demographic History of Palestine in Wikepedia;

In these circumstances one can completely discount the Myth of the Diaspora and therefore the supposed Aliyah Jewish Right of Return, as well as any Jewish "Connection" to the land of Palestine as required under the mandate.

Finally Professor John Quigley in his book "The Statehood of Palestine" clearly spells out the fact that Palstine has been a state continuously since 1924 and Israel is a state that ceded a part of Palestine in 1924.

Professor Quigley shows that British legal opinion questioned wether Israel can be formed as as a state in a legal sense and the United Nations in 1948 refused the Syrian request to obtain such an opinion.

Under those circumstances and from a legal perspective it may be worthwhile to obtain final legal judgment on the question of Palestinian and Israeli Statehood.

Nikita Kamenetski  Iyad Rafidi • 3 years ago

Before mid 1970s in the English Language dictionaries the term Palestinian People had never been used.
The Columbia Encyclopedia, New York & London, Columbia University Press, 1968 in the article on Palestine there's not a single word "a palestinian". The reason was that there were no Palestinian people in 1968. For the first time in the Global arena the term Palestinian People was used on December 22 1976 UN General Assembly document A/Dec/31/318 Resolution 31/318.
And here I am citing from Wallace Edward Brand's "SOVIET RUSSIA, THE CREATORS OF THE PLO AND THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE":
"The revelations of the highest ranking Soviet bloc defector, Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa [Romania], show that the peace process is, and has from the outset, been nothing but a charade.
It all started with the creation of a fictitious "Palestinian People" who allegedly demand political self determination. This collective noun was created by the Soviet disinformation masters in 1964 when they created the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the "PLO". The term "Palestinian People" as a descriptive of Arabs in Palestine appeared for the first time in the preamble of the 1964 PLO Charter, drafted in Moscow. The Charter was affirmed by the first 422 members of the Palestinian National Council, handpicked by the KGB.
Why in Moscow? The 1960s and 1970s were the years the Soviets were in the business of creating "liberation organizations": for Palestine and Bolivia in 1964, Columbia 1965, in the 70s "The Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia" that bombed US airline offices in Europe, and "The Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine that bombed Israelis." But the PLO, was by far its most enduring success....
In the PLO Charter preamble they actually had to use the phrase "Palestinian Arab People" to exclude those Jews who had retained a presence in Palestine since Biblical times and had been a majority population in Jerusalem as early as 1845. Romanian Communist dictator Ceausescu, at Soviet urging, persuaded Arafat to abandon his claim of wanting to annihilate the Jews in Israel in favor of "liberating the Palestinian People" in Israel.
Why? A brilliant strategy. That was the first step in reframing the conflict between the Arabs and the Jews from religious jihad to secular nationalism in a quest for political self determination, a posture far less offensive to the West. By focusing on political liberation for a small group of Arabs, it ignored the fact that Israel is a small state whose existence is threatened by the surrounding Arab states. These are states that outnumber its population many fold with Muslims who are commanded by an extreme form of their religion to kill infidels to take back land formerly controlled by Muslims. It creates Jews, ignoring they are a small group, as oppressors of an even smaller discrete group of Arabs, described in the Charter as Palestinian Arabs excluding those in Jordan, Judea, Samaria and Gaza. (After the 1967 war, and the Isreali conquest of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, the exclusions for Arabs in those areas were removed the Charter). It transforms the Jews from victims to oppressors. "

salubrius  Iyad Rafidi • 2 years ago

No it does not imply Jewish Home or Homeland means a Jewish State.
It means there was a phased plan in which a Jewish Homeland would grow into a Jewish State when the Jews had a population majority in the territory under consideration and the capability of exercising sovereignty. Nor did it ignore the individual political rights of the Arabs (there was no Palestinian People at the time) The Arabs individual political rights were preserved as civil rights. Even if Ashkenazi Jews had no connection to Palestine, the Mizrahi Jews clearly do and more than 50% of the Jews in Palestine are Mizrahi from the Middle East.

Andrei Florescu  Iyad Rafidi • 2 years ago

So!
I have for you another genetics study that conclude to something else. Enjoy!
http://www.nature.com/natur...

Andrei Florescu  Andrei Florescu • 2 years ago

Relative to Nature scientific magazine where was published the article about Jewish heritage mention by me previously. "Nature is the world's most highly cited interdisciplinary science journal, according to the 2013 Journal Citation Reports Science Edition (Thomson Reuters, 2014). Its Impact Factor is 42.351".
Mr. Ryad mention an article in Oxford journals that even is not a scientific publication and has no rating what so ever. For who is not familiar with different scientific magazine should know that not all the magazine are the same. In scientific world there is a classification of all magazines. Higher numbers means more prestigious articles with higher scientific scrutiny from an number of scrupoulous scientist. Nature is one of the highest reputation and they admit only highest quality articles scrutinized by highest standards. Impact factor 42.35 is absolutely huge. AF

Drwilly  Iyad Rafidi • 3 years ago

Iyad Rafidi, do you really believe the nonsense you write?
Just an example: Jewish priests Cohanim inherit their priesthood from their father. This was confirmed by genetic analysis of the y chromosome which is as you know inherited by male descendents.
If 75% Jews are not descendents of the Hebrew people, how do you explain all those Cohen,Kohn, Kahan, etc...?
Thank you for your attention

David  Iyad Rafidi • 3 years ago

I have no time right now to address all of your inaccuracies, Iyad, but just very few for starter:

The most important inaccuracy is your contention regarding "the rights provided in the mandate of the indigenous Palestinian people;"!!

Without getting into too many "complications" you ignore the fact that the mandate was issued in order to build a national home for the Jewish People - not for the "Palestinians"!!!

That said, the mere fact that said "Palestinians" have rejected the UN Partition Plan, decided to go to war and losing that war, deprives them from any "rights" they may have had by any twisted interpretation you may wish to bring up!!!
Their acts do not award them any such prizes!!!!

I'm sorry I don't have the time to go farther with this. May be another time.

Wallace Edward Brand  Iyad Rafidi • 3 years ago

The Palestine Mandate was a trust in which the settlors who contributed the trust res were the Allied Principal War Powers. The lodestar of interpreting the trust is the intention of the settlors. This was described in a memorandum of the British Foreign Office dated December 19, 1917. The Jewish People had the immediate right of settlement in Palestine but the collective political rights were to be held in trust until the Jewish People attained a population majority in the area to be ruled and the capability of exercising sovereignty. This was to avoid charges that the government was "antidemocratic. These national rights vested in two parts. One part vested in 1948 when the Jews attained a majority of the population inside the Green Line and unified control over the defined territory and the permanent population. The second part vested when the Jews attained unified control over Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem.

"The Official Journal of the League of Nations, dated June 1922, contained a statement by Lord Balfour (UK) in which he explained that the League's authority was strictly limited. The article related that the 'Mandates were not the creation of the League, and they could not in substance be altered by the League. The League's duties were confined to seeing that the specific and detailed terms of the mandates were in accordance with the decisions taken by the Allied and Associated Powers, and that in carrying out these mandates the Mandatory Powers should be under the supervision—not under the control—of the League.'[

Article 27 gave a little flexibility to the supervisors of the trust but they could not alter it in substance. They could not change the cestui que trust from the Jewish People to the Arab People as has been implied. And the Permanent Mandates Commission ruled that the UK had no authority to adopt the changes in the 1939 Mandate. The trust lived on until 1967 when the territory of Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem vested in the Jewish People even though the State of Israel has not asserted as yet asserted Jurisdiction over Judea and Samaria. Under Article 80 of the UN Charter, the UN has no authority to change the rights of the Jews in those territories.

Under the Palestine Mandate the Jewish People could not require the non-Jewish communities to surrender any of their rights. By providing internal autonomy to those non-Jewiish communities, they have lived up to their obligations. The non-Jews in those territories never had collective political rights to self-determination. They had been under the colonial rule of Turkey for 400 years prior to 1920. All they had was individual political rights which were saved as "civil rights", and religious rights also saved.

See SSRN.com/abstract=2385304

Mara Cohen  Iyad Rafidi • 3 years ago

Iyad Rafidi- By what standards do you label Arab Palestinians as "Indigenous". Residents of longstanding are not necessarily Indigenous. And just given documented history, as well as Family Names indicating place of origin, the Arab Palestinians are not Indigenous to the that area of the Levant.

atworld  Mara Cohen • 3 years ago

Mara Cohen,

You're question implies that you believe that Jews are the only rightful owners of Palestine. If so, and likewise, by what standards does one label European Jews as the owners of Palestine? As Jewish and other scientist DNA research concluded, European Jews aren't even Semites.