Apr 7, 2011

Legal Aspect Of Jewish Rights in "The Mandate for Palestine"


Map of the borders of the Jewish National Home in Palestine as demarcated in the December 1920 Franco-British Boundary Convention. (map courtesy of Eli Hertz, www.mythsandfacts.org )


Map of the borders of the Jewish National Home in Palestine after the British cut off the eastern 77% of the demarcated borders(Trans-Jordan). The truncating of the borders of Palestine violated article 5 of the Mandate for Palestine, which prohibited the ceding of any "Palestine territory." (map courtesy of Eli Hertz, www.mythsandfacts.org )

The Franco-British Boundary Convention


The San Remo Resolution (April 24-25, 1920) stipulated that the borders of the Jewish National Home in Palestine should be determined by the Principal Allied Powers. On December 6, 1920 Britain and France signed a treaty delineating the borders of the territory that would be placed under the Mandates System.

The territory included in the 1920 convention included most of the land that had been under Jewish rule during Biblical times. However, there were some modifications. It was realized that much of the territory north of the Golan Heights was supposed to be part of the Syrian Mandate (see the Adam Smith map of the Kingdoms of David and Solomon). As a result, the Jewish National Home was given extra land in what today is eastern Jordan.

The Convention involved bitter negotiations. The French were opposed to giving up control of the Roman Catholic sites in Palestine. The Turks who ruled in Palestine for the four-hundred years prior to World War I did limited access to the sites. In the end, the British had guaranteed they would protect access of Catholics to their religious sites.

Additionally, the British gave the French administered mandates large amounts of land that were supposed to be included in the Jewish National Home. The land in the Upper Galilee, from what today is the Israel/Lebanon border extending north to the Litani River bend as well as the central Golan Heights was removed from the demarcated borders of Palestine.

According to Article 25 of the Mandate for Palestine, the Mandatory (His Britannic Majesty) had the right to separate the administration of the Mandate in Trans-Jordan from the rest of the Palestine territory. This had to be done with the approval of the League of Nations:

"In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18."

The wording, "postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions is by the nature of the wording a temporary action. That action was only valid until there was a change in the conditions leading to that decision. It did not authorize the British to permanently cut off portions of the land and turn it over to a foreign people.

Furthermore, according to Article 25, the postponement or withholding of the application of the Mandate in Trans-Jordan could not be inconsistent with Article 15 of the Mandate for Palestine which states:

"No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief."

The British "White Papers policies, which prohibited Jewish settlement East of the Jordan, while allowing a foreign group of Arabs (the Hashemites) to settle and eventually be given all of Trans-Jordan, was in clear violation of Article 15, as well as Article 5 of the Mandate which stated 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.

The full text of Articles 5, 15, and 25:

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.

ARTICLE 15. The Mandatory shall see that complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, are ensured to all. No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.

ARTICLE 25. In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.

Sources:
http://www.justicenow4israel.com/mandatemap.html

My comments:  The PLO have the entire Arabian Palestine for their home.  They have no right to have a state embedded within the Jewish Palestine.  They are usurpers are claiming the land where they're squatting in.

Why "Medical Emergencies" Don't Bypass SOP at IDF Security Checkpoints.

The video is a stark reminder of what could have happened if the IDF became "compassionate".

If video fails, click here or go to http://divine-ripples.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-medical-emergencies-dont-bypass-idf.html

The Fifth Column: On Burning Books

The Fifth Column: On Burning Books: "Still, for a people who feel themselves rendered impotent by a series of wars against Islamic radicals that are never-ending, by a president whose pro-Muslim sympathies are painfully and frighteningly clear, by a level of Muslim violence which cannot be controlled or managed, the burning of the Koran is an act by which any Christian can symbolically center themselves. It is a declaration of war against an increasingly chaotic universe, a Mahdi-inspired universe.
By burning a Koran, we tell the Muslim radical, 'Here I stand. You shall not pass.'

It may not be prudent, it may not be useful, but it is a stand worthy of respect."

Muslim Student Attacks UN Rights Council for Anti-Israel Bias

If video fails, click here or go to http://divine-ripples.blogspot.com/2011/04/muslim-student-attacks-un-rights.html


Amran Hussain EUJS speech at the UN 21st of March 2011

EUJS speech at the UN during the Item 7 to support Israel, Against UN dispropationnal reaction.
As a muslim student, he wanted to explain himself and why he decided to make this speech.
EUJS is very impressed by him and his bravery!

Recent Posts

Popular Posts

Blog Archive