Monday, April 20, 2015



by Wallace Brand


Most people don't understand that Palestine, or at least the alleged
"Palestinian People," has no right to be sovereign even though they
read UN Conventions dealing with the right of a “people” that
appear to say any "people" has the right to self-determination.
They haven't obeyed the scholar's imperative: "read on" to where
the Charter provides for "sovereign equality". These are the legal
code words guaranteeing the territorial integrity of sovereign
CNH Long became the Dean of the Yale Medical School. When he was a freshman at Oxford, one of his friends found in the 600 year old rulebook, a rule permitting the practice of archery in a certain way between the hours of 2 and 6. In the intervening 550 years the way had become a boulevard and then a major traffic artery. When they  practiced  one  day,  they  blocked  traffic  and  caused  a considerable traffic jam.
They were haled before the Wardens who said they would be
Electronic copy available at:

punished. One of the students pointed to the rule, the Wardens replied: “Read on.” and pointed to another rule two pages on that provided: “When practicing archery one must be wearing Lincoln Green. So Long and the other students were punished. They should have read further.
By the 70s the natural law provision entitling a “people” to self-
determination had become international law. But the international
lawyers drafting these provisions had inserted into the rules a
provision for “sovereign equality” — legal code words standing
for the proposition that a sovereign may not invade the boundary
of another sovereign’s territory. So while the law might provide for
the self-determination of a “people”, they could not unilaterally
secede from a preexisting state. That is the rule followed by the US
in the current Ukrainian controversy and pushed by it at the
European Union and NATO.
Most people also think that the basis for Israel's sovereignty was
the  UN  General  Assembly's  Resolution 181,  the  Partition
Resolution, not the 1920 San Remo Resolution and the Palestine
Mandate. The latter was a treaty approved by 52 League of Nations
members in 1922 and the US. This Mandate provided detail for the
Balfour Declaration policy adopted by the Allies word-for-word at
San Remo.
People were persuaded as above because the UN Committee on the
Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People,
dominated by Arabs and Africans, got a law professor at George
Washington University W.T. Mallison (and his wife Sally) to write
a legal opinion to the effect that the occupation of Judea and
Samaria was illegal under international law. The Committee
published  it  in  pamphlet form  in 1979.  It was  entitled  "An
International  Law  Analysis  of  the  Major  United  Nations
Resolutions  Concerning  the  Palestine  Question".  How  many
people on the street know anything at all about international law?

Electronic copy available at:

Most people reading it assumed that the UN General Assembly
was like the Congress. They assumed that when the UN General
Assembly enacted a resolution, it became a part of international
law. That is not so and the Mallisons did nothing to disabuse them
of that assumption. These UN General Assembly resolutions are
only recommendations. If they are accepted by all parties to a
dispute, the parties may enter into a treaty. That becomes a part of
international law. See e.g. The Effect of Resolutions of the U.N.
General Assembly on Customary International Law by Stephen M.
Schwebel, deputy legal advisor to the US Department of State in
Proceedings  of  the  Annual  Meeting (American  Society  of
International Law), Vol. 73(APRIL 26-28, 1979), pp. 301-309.
He said:
"It is trite but no less true that the General Assembly of the United
Nations lacks legislative powers. Its resolutions are not, generally
speaking, binding on the States Members of the United Nations or
binding in international law at large. It could hardly be otherwise.
We do not have a world legislature. If we had one, hopefully it
would not be composed as is the General Assembly on the basis of
the unrepresentative principle of the sovereign equality of states,
states which in turn are represented by governments so many of
which are themselves not representative of their peoples.

"As the [United States] Secretary of State recently put it: 'In considering the decision making process in the United Nations, it is important to bear in mind that while the one-state, one-vote procedure for expressing the sense of the General Assembly is from many points of view unsatisfactory, the incorporation of this principle in the Charter was balanced by giving the Assembly only recommendatory powers.'"

Schwebel went on to say there were some International Lawyers

Electronic copy available at:

that tried to fit recurring statements in UN Resolutions into the
category of long standing custom or practice between or among
The  Mallison  legal  opinion  assumed  that  the  UN  Partition Resolution was a part of International Law. It divided Palestine west of the Jordan River into three parts. One part went to the Jews, one part to the Arabs, and one part was to become, at least initially, a "corpus separatum" to be ruled by a Committee of the UN. That was the Jerusalem area -- containing many religious sites that were holy for all three major religions.
That the legal opinion was a gross distortion of international law
outraged Julius Stone, an Australian,world recognized international
lawyer. In response he wrote a book published in 1981 entitled
Israel Palestine: Assault on the Law of Nations. In it he showed
that  the  Major  UN  General  Assembly  Resolutions  were  not
international law because Resolution 181, the Partition Resolution,
although accepted by the Jews was not accepted by the Arabs and
therefore it died at birth. For that reason the Jews were not limited
to the territory they were assigned in Resolution 181. Also, the
Jews were not illegally in the Jerusalem area because the corpus
separatum also died at birth along with Resolution 181.
Mallison's  legal  opinion  also  opined  that  Arabs  residing  in
Palestine had, under international law, a right to self-determination.
But that right has never been awarded under international law in
the case of attempted secession where its application would have
empowered the UN to redraw the boundaries of an existing
sovereign state. It has only been applied to cases of decolonization.
Mallison ignored that all of Palestine west of the Jordan River was
recognized by some 53 states in 1922 as being owned by the Jews
when  they  approved  the  Palestine  Mandate.  Some 52  were
members of the League of Nations that approved it as a treaty and
the United States that wasn't a member of the League approved it


by a Joint Resolution of Congress in 1922 and in a separate treaty, the Anglo-American Convention of 1924.
The chronology is this. At the Paris Peace Talks in 1919, claims to
the European and Middle East territories that the Allies had won in
WWI, for them a defensive war, were the subject of claims by
European parties and also by the Arab people and the Jewish
People. The Arabs through King Hussein claimed Syria, Iraq and
Palestine — the Jews, through the World Zionist Organization
claimed only Palestine, both east and west of the Jordan River. The
Allies disposed of the claims to European territories at Versailles
but did not resolve the claims to the Middle East territories until
they had reconvened at San Remo in 1920. There they placed the
political rights to Syria and Mesopotamia (now Iraq) in trust for
the Arab people who were in the majority in those areas when the
Arabs were capable of exercising sovereignty and placed the
political rights to Palestine in trust for the Jews in the light of their
historic association with Palestine. Why? At the time the Jewish
population in all of Palestine was only about 10% of the total, even
though  the  Jews  had  enjoyed  a  majority  population  in  the
Jerusalem area since 1863 and a plurality since 1845. The British,
in their Balfour policy framed in November, 1917 had decided to
handle this by placing the political rights in trust not only until the
people in the territory were capable of exercising sovereignty but
also not until the Jews had attained a population majority by their
hard work to bring back to Palestine Jews from the diaspora to get
a  population  majority.  This  would  avoid  an  "antidemocratic"
government, rule by a 10% minority — like the later French
recognition of the Alawites as sovereign over Syria that has
resulted in so much death and destruction. To award the Jewish
People only the equitable ownership of the political rights to
Palestine — the rights to self-determination, they would place
these political rights in trust, not to vest until the Jews had both a
population  majority  as  well  as  the  capability  of  exercising
sovereignty and would require the trustee to facilitate Jewish

immigration (but not Arab immigration) so as to obtain that
majority more quickly. However between 1920 and 1922 events in
Syria and in transJordan, Palestine east of the Jordan River had
motivated  Britain to limit the area placed in trust for the Jews to
the territory of Palestine west of the Jordan. The Palestine Mandate
was drafted to specify in detail the new British Policy in Article 25,
a temporary limitation on Jewish settlement east of the Jordan.
In 1947 the British decided to abdicate their responsibilities as
trustee of the political rights to Palestine in 1948. The political
rights of the Jews matured in 1950 when the Jews attained a
population majority in the area within the Armistice boundary.
Instead  of  only  an  equitable  interest,  now,  without  formal
acclamation, the Jews now had a legal interest in the political
rights and the Jewish National Home had matured into a Jewish
reconstituted  Commonwealth  as  originally  conceived  in  the
framing of the Balfour Declaration. If those Arab people residing
in Palestine west of the Jordan had any right to self-determination,
the UN would have to redraw the boundary of the sovereign state
of Israel to exclude at least East Jerusalem from the sovereign
State of Israel, and also to exclude Judea and Samaria to which
Israel was entitled but to which Israel had not as yet asserted its
rights. This would violate Israel's territorial integrity that was
guaranteed by the UN Charter. My legal opinion to that effect can
be found at and is shown below in
International Law is derived principally from treaties between or
among states, but also can be derived from long standing custom
between  or  among  states.  In 1984  those  pushing  Palestinian
statehood financed the publication of a scholarly appearing journal
entitled Palestinian Yearbook of International Law responding to
Professor Stone's treatise. In it, in an article entitled "The Juridical
Basis of Palestinian Self-Determination" the Mallisons attempted
to resurrect their legal opinion by trying to fit the UN's Partition


Resolution,  that  had  died  at  birth,  into  the  category  of  a
longstanding custom or practice of many states. That is hard to
accept because the Arab states that were a major part of the group
that dominated the UN and its Committee on the Exercise of the
Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, at the time of the
Partition  Resolution  had  not  accepted  the  Resolution  as
international law but instead had rejected it so violently they had
gone to war.

PART I: "Roots Of Israel's Sovereignty And Boundaries In International Law: In Defense Of
          The Levy Report

Part I first examines the legal basis of the Levy report, which
concluded that Jewish settlements are legal. In fact, the legality of
Israel's presence in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem was res
judicata as of April 25, 1920, when [at the San Remo Conference]
World Jewry received a beneficial interest in the political rights to
Palestine that was intended to mature into a legal interest. The
policy for the Arab States that were established at around the same
time by other Mandates was to bestow on the current Arab
inhabitants of those states an equitable interest in the political
rights to those states, but the beneficiary for Mandated Palestine
was not the Jews residing in Palestine but World Jewry. The
Mandate thus confirmed a living connection between the Jews and
their homeland, extending over some 3700 years. Modern Israel
was legally projected to be molded in two stages, where [1]
"Palestine was legally recognized as a Jewish National Home -- as a prelude to [2] a reconstituted Jewish State," which would come into being when the Jews in Palestine were in the majority. Part I also discusses the sorry history of Britain’s role as trustee.
In sum, "the Mandate system provided in Article 22 of the League


of Nations’ Covenant was designed to help states that had been
subject  to  Ottoman  occupation  for 400  years,  to  become
independent  after  they  learned  democratic  principles,  formed political parties and were able to self govern. An exception was the Mandate for Israel where the Jewish People who had largely been driven  out  of  Palestine  and  dispersed  by  the  Romans,  were recognized as the owners of the political rights."
The decision on whether the Arabs or the Jews have
sovereignty over all of Palestine west of the Jordan
River under International Law is res judicata, lawyer
talk for "the issue has already been decided".
We tell you below who the judges were, what gave them
jurisdiction or authority to make the decision, when the
competing claims were received and when they were
acted  upon,  how  the  Judges  communicated  their
decision, and why the decision was to provide a two
step process, first a Jewish National Home and then a
Jewish State.
The recent Levy Report is one of a series of legal
opinions  by  several  people,  each  independently
reaching the same conclusion. This is the conclusion
that World Jewry has had as of 1920, a Jewish National
Home in all of Palestine, or since 1922 at least in that
part of Palestine west of the Jordan River. That National
Home  was  always  intended  to  be  a  prelude  to  a
reconstituted Jewish State in Palestine. It was a part of
the mandate system provided for in the League of
Nations  Covenant  or  charter,  Article 22.  These
mandated areas were areas ruled from afar for many
years  and  were  intended  to  be  helped  by  more


established states to become self governing states when
they were found to be ready for it. The Mandate for
Palestine had different standards for statehood. It was
to become a reconstituted viable Jewish State of Israel
when it met two standards originally established i.e. to
attain a majority of Jewish population in the area
governed,  and  to  become  as  capable  of  exercising
sovereignty as any modern European State.
Recent Levy Report on whether settlements in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem are illegal

I started my own inquiry and analysis several years ago.
It was commenced before the recent publication of the
report of the Levy Commission [1] finding that Jewish
Settlements in Judea and Samaria were not illegal as
Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention [2] prohibiting
the "deportation or transfer" of its citizens was not
applicable to decisions of individual Israeli citizens to
move their place of residence. Permitting them to do so
or  even  facilitating  the  relocation  was  not  the
proscribed exercise of State Power. The Levy Report
held that the 4th Geneva Convention was directed solely
at prohibiting the exercise of state power. The report
also held that the claim by Israel to the ownership of the
political rights to this territory was a good claim based
on the 1920 San Remo Resolution and on the British
Mandate for Palestine as of 1922 [3] because The San
Remo decision, a treaty among the Principal Allied War
Powers, had adopted the 1917 Balfour Declaration of


British Policy [4] with the result that it had now become
International Law. The 1922 League of Nations Mandate
for Palestine,  providing detail for administering the
content of the Balfour Declaration [5] confirmed the San
Remo agreement as the source of Jewish political or
national rights to Palestine, with a new Article 25
intended to limit Jewish settlement East of the Jordan River.

Other opinions reaching the same conclusion

In the course of my own inquiry, I learned that before I
had  started,  Dr.  Jacques  Gauthier  had  compiled  a
monumental 1400  page  doctoral  thesis,      [6]  Dr.
Gauthier's work was followed by a legal tome of 732
pages written by Howard Grief, Esq. a Canadian lawyer
now residing in Israel.[7] Grief's book was followed by
that of a non lawyer, Mr. Salomon Benzimra of Toronto,
who stated in a much shorter and more readable work
ó with helpful maps ó the factual premises leading to
the legal conclusions of Gauthier and Grief. His book
was published in Kindle by Amazon in November, 2011.
[8] My own view was initially published on line in a
blog ó Think ó but thereafter, with greater
documentation, in a two part op ed in a conservative
newspaper in Israel known as Arutz Sheva. [9]
My legal opinion was followed by the opinion of Dr.
Cynthia  Wallace,[10]  who  had  been  retained  by  a
Christian Evangelical group. Finally, a recent report by
the Levy Commission authorized by the current Prime


Minister  of  Israel [English  translation  of  the  legal
arguments in the Levy Report (updated) [11] contained the legal opinions of three distinguished Israeli jurists. One was Justice Edmund Levy, formerly a Justice of the Supreme Court of Israel. These jurists, for the first time, delivered an opinion on the status of Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem that was not dominated by an Israeli left wing Labour Government.
All these opinions have only minor differences and
reach the same conclusion ó that World Jewry owns
the political or national rights to all of Palestine West of
the Jordan, and possibly some of that east of the Jordan
as well. Legal opinions reaching the same conclusion, to
my knowledge, go back at least to 1993 [12] so it cannot
be said to be a recent politically inspired fabrication as
some of its critics have charged. See especially, "Israel's
Rights  to  Samaria" [13]  and  excellent  articles  by
Douglas Feith and Elliott A. Green.[14] Feith was later the  Deputy  Secretary  of  Defense  for  Policy  under Rumsfeld in the George W Bush Administration; Elliott Green is an Israeli researcher. The critics with this view have responded ad hominem but few have raised issues of fact or law.  More recently I have encountered the opinion of the acclaimed international lawyer, the late Julius  Stone  of  Australia,  the  author  of  Israel and Palestine: Assault on the Law of Nations.

The major points of the Levy Report


In the Levy Report, the first issue was whether Jewish
settlements in Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem, three
areas invaded by the Arab Legion in 1948 and illegally
occupied until 1967, were unlawful. The Israeli Labour
Government lawyer, Theodor Meron [15] had suggested
the proper law to apply was the law of "belligerent
occupation."  Belligerent  occupation  occurs  when  a
belligerent  state  invades  the  territory  of  another
sovereign  state  with  the  intention  of  holding  the
territory at least temporarily. That law is based on
Article 43 of the 4th Hague Convention of 1907 that
assumes that land being occupied has a legitimate
sovereign. It is not applicable because Jordan was
illegally occupying it after an aggressive invasion in
1948. Another Labour Party lawyer, Talia Sasson, [16]
also claimed the occupation was illegal, also assumed
belligerent  occupation,  and  strongly  criticized  the
settlements. But even if belligerent occupation were
found applicable, there would have to be shown that
under the Geneva Convention the state of Israel had
"deported or transferred" the "settlers". These "settlers"
[17] were individuals who had decided on their own for
economic or religious reasons to move to a new place to
live outside the 1949 Armistice "Green Line". Some of
them were re settlers, who just wanted to return to
their homes ó after the area had been liberated. Their
homes were in a place that had been illegally occupied
by Jordan and they had been expelled by Jordan in 1948
or thereafter. They clearly were not "deported" by
Israel and if they relocated under their own motivation


for patriotic reasons, religious reasons or just to go back to the home from which they were expelled in 1948, no state had "transferred" them. They simply moved for their own reasons.
The term "transfer" must be distorted to be applied to
situations it simply was not intended to cover such as a
movement of that kind. The 4th Geneva Convention is
directed at state action, not the action of individuals.
The earlier opinions of Labour Government lawyers
took a Convention that was directed at states and
attempted to apply it to individuals by holding that it
meant that the State of Israel was required to prevent
its Jewish citizens from moving where they wanted to
even though preventing them from doing so would
violate the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
Articles 13 and 15(2).[18] One of the authors of the
Levy  Report  had  in 2011 written  about  the
interpretation that distorted the word "transfer".[19]
After finding that the Geneva Convention did not apply, the Levy Commission looked to determine the state that did have sovereignty over the area conquered by the Arab Legion in 1948.[20]
In       1948,  the  Arab  Legion,  acting  as  the  army  of
transJordan that later became the Nation State of Jordan,
invaded the area that had been ruled by the British
Mandatory government for Palestine as the trustee
under the Mandate for Palestine. It was soon after the
Mandate or trust had been abandoned by its trustee,
Great Britain. Israel had announced its independence
and was ruling as the reconstituted State of Israel as


had been recommended by the UN General Assembly Resolution 181.[21]
The Arab Legion was an Army consisting in the main of
Arab transJordanian soldiers but they were supplied
with arms by the British and led by British Officers
under the command of British General Glubb, (Glubb
Pasha) even though Britain the US and many other
countries had embargoed arms to Israel. For some 19
years, from 1948 to 1967, Jordan illegally occupied
what had been Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem.
Under its rule all the 58 synagogues in the area but one
were destroyed; some 38,000 tombstones from the
Jewish Cemetery on the Mount of Olives were broken or
defaced;  all  Jews  were  expelled  from  the  area  it
acquired.  Jordan's  promises  in  the 1948  Armistice
Agreement to permit visits by Christians and Jews to their holy places were not kept. In 1967, when the IDF reached the Western Wall of the Temple Mount, they found a latrine had been built against it.
While the former leftist Labour Government lawyers had  held  after 1967 that  Israeli  was  holding  the
territory under the Law of Belligerent Occupation, it is
hard to see how they arrived at that conclusion. That
doctrine only applies to belligerent occupation against a
lawful sovereign in an area. Only two countries in the
whole  world,  Britain  and  Pakistan  had  recognized
Jordan's sovereignty over what they renamed the "West
Bank". All of Jordan's territory dating back to before
1948 was on the East Bank of the River Jordan. Perhaps
they renamed the area the Israelis had liberated ó


called Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem since historic times ó "The West Bank" because they would look silly claiming that the Jews were illegally occupying Judea. (Hats off to Professor Steven Plaut)

The San Remo Resolution
Israel's roots in International Law start in the San Remo Resolution of 1920 and not as most assume, in the UN General Assembly Resolution of 1947. It was the latter that recommended Partition of Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish state. In that resolution Jerusalem and the nearby holy places were to be held separately as a corpus separatum at least temporarily under control of the UN. It was a recommendation that had no force and no effect because one of the parties it was addressed to, the Arabs, rejected it and went to war.

What is International Law

International Law is created by treaties (also called
"conventions) between and among states or by long
standing custom. International Law cannot be created
by the UN. The UN General Assembly does not have that
authority;  nor  does  any  international  entity.  The
International Court of Justice has no authority to create
International  law.  This  is  particularly  true  where
International Law recognizes sovereignty over areas
such as Palestine. That is because the UN Charter in
Article 80 says in pertinent part, "...nothing in this


Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples  or  the  terms  of  existing  international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties. [22]
Its being saved is also the consequence of the legal
doctrines of "acquired legal rights" and of "estoppel. As
explained by Howard Grief "the principle of 'acquired
legal rights' which, as applied to the Jewish people,
means that the rights they acquired or were recognized
as  belonging  to  them  when  Palestine  was  legally
recognized by 52 nations as the Jewish National Home
[as a prelude to a reconstituted Jewish State] are not
affected by the termination of the treaty or the acts of
international law which were the source of those rights.
This principle already existed when the Anglo American
Convention came to an end simultaneously with the
termination of the Mandate for Palestine on May 14 15,
1948. It has since been codified in Article 70(1)(b) of
the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
This principle of international law would apply even if
one of the parties to the treaty failed to perform the
obligations imposed on it, as was the case with the
British  government  in  regard  to  the  Mandate  for
The reverse side of the principle of acquired legal rights
is the doctrine of estoppel which is also of great
importance in preserving Jewish national rights. This
doctrine  prohibits  any  state  from  denying  what  it
previously admitted or recognized in a treaty or other


international agreement. In the Convention of 1924, the United States recognized all the rights recognized as belonging to the Jewish people under the Mandate, in particular the right of Jewish settlement anywhere in Palestine  or  the  Land  of  Israel.  Therefore  the  US government is legally estopped today from denying the right of Jews in Israel to establish settlements in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, which have been approved by the government of Israel." [23]
Article 80 is in UN Chapter XII that gives the UN the
authority to establish and administer trust territories.
That is pertinent because Israel once was a "mandate".
The UN calls them "trusteeships". "Mandate" is what the
League  of  Nations,  the  UN's  predecessor  in  world
government called an area placed in trust until it was
capable of self government. Recognition of this political
or national right was saved by Jews concerned about
the rights under the British Mandate for Palestine when
the UN was given authority to deal with trusteeships as
the Mandate was a trusteeship under the League of
Nations name. [24]

The Paris Peace Talks and the decision at San Remo
To understand the San Remo Agreement we must go
back in time to WWI when the Turkish Ottoman Empire
entered the War on the side of Germany. Germany and
Turkey lost that war. They entered into an Armistice
Agreement on November 11, 1918. As the holder of
territory after being the winner of a defensive war the


Principal   Allied   War   Powers   ó   The   British
Commonwealth, France, the US, Italy and Japan ó were
entitled  under  International  Law  of  long  standing
custom to occupy the Ottoman Empire until a peace
treaty was signed that delineated boundaries agreed on
by the parties. After the Paris Peace talks that were held
commencing   January     4th,    1919  the   Principals
determined  to  establish  a  world  government  to
maintain peace to be entitled The League of Nations. Its
Covenant or charter was Part One of the Treaty of
Versailles. The participants to the Paris Peace talks
included  the  Principal  War  Powers  and  European
claimants primarily interested in territories in Europe.
Even before the end of the war, in November, 1917 the
Lord Balfour Policy had been established as British
policy that World Jewry would be the beneficiary of the
trust of the ìpoliticalî or ìnational rightsî to Palestine.
These  are  the  rights  that  entitle  political  self
determination.   Both Arabs and Jews interested in
territories in the Middle East were also present at the
Peace Talks in Paris and submitted their claims there.
The Arabs claims were made under the auspices of King
Ibn  Hussayn,  however  they  were  presented  by
Lawrence of Arabia and also through George Antonius.
Antonius brought up Arab and French claims conflicting
with the Balfour Declaration, notably claims based on
the Hussayn McMahon correspondence and the secret
Sykes Picot Agreement. Antonius had made a careful
study of these and his arguments initially seemed quite


convincing that the British had sold the same horse three times.
The Zionist Organization made the following claim for a two step process in which the territory would first become  a  Jewish  National  Home  and  then  would become a reconstituted Jewish state.
"Palestine  shall  be  placed  under  such  political,
administrative and economic conditions as will secure
the  establishment  there  of  the  Jewish  National
Home and ultimately render possible the creation of
an  autonomous  Commonwealth,  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.
[emphasis added]
To this end the Mandatory Power shall inter alia:
Promote Jewish immigration and close settlement on
the land, the established rights of the present non
Jewish population being equitably safeguarded.
Accept the cooperation in such measures of a Council
representative of the Jews of Palestine and of the world
that may be established for the development of the
Jewish National Home in Palestine and entrust the
organization of Jewish education to such Council
On being satisfied that the constitution of such Council
precludes the making of private profit, offer to the
Council in priority any concession for public works or
for the development of natural resources that it may be


found desirable to grant. The Mandatory Power shall
encourage the widest measure of self government for
localities practicable in the conditions of the country
There shall be forever the fullest freedom of religious
worship for all creeds in Palestine. There shall be no
discrimination among the inhabitants with regard to
citizenship and civil rights, on the grounds of religion,
or of race" [25]
What the Zionist organization was asking for in Paris in
1919 was essentially the already decided British policy
in the 1917 Balfour Declaration that the Principal War
Powers later adopted at San Remo in 1920: That the
Jews  wanted  essentially  a  protectorate  that  would
ultimately transition into a reconstituted state was well
known as even the small Jewish population in Palestine
did not believe it was ready to exercise sovereignty. As
reported in the Voltaire Network, a somewhat anti
semitic news network, of the three things the Jewish
People wanted, one was "the establishment of a Jewish
National  Home  in  Palestine  as  a  prelude  to  a
reconstituted Jewish state". [emphasis added] [26]
The Principal War Powers were able to complete their
review and implement its action on the claims over
European territories in the Paris Peace Talks. The
written decision is within part II of the Treaty of
Versailles. They needed to extend their deliberations to
decide  on  the  claims  on  what  had  been  Ottoman
territory in the Middle East. To do just that, they met


again in San Remo, Italy in April, 1920 and dealt with the Arab and Jewish claims on April 24th and 25th. At the end of that meeting, the claims were res judicata. The WWI Principal War Powers decided to recognize the  then  current  Arab  inhabitants  of  Syria  and Mesopotamia as the beneficial owners of the political powers for those countries but adopt the British Balfour policy and recognize World Jewry as the beneficial owner of the political rights to Palestine.
Three documents recorded the decision of the Principal
War Powers on Palestine: the Treaty of Sevres, the
Treaty of Lausanne, and the San Remo Resolution.
Article 95 of the Treaty of Sevres was confirmed by the
later Treaty of Lausanne as by that time the cession ó
transfer of sovereignty to the mandatory power, a
formal giving up of rights, especially by a state ó in
Asia was a fait accompli and Articles 16 and 30 of the
latter  treaty  left  Turkey's  relinquishment  of  its
sovereignty over territories in Asia unchanged. The San
Remo Resolution was also a writing that incorporated
the decision of the Principal War Powers on those
competing claims to Palestine adopting the Balfour
Declaration in terms that were left to be further spelled
out in the Mandate for Palestine. But the British Balfour
Policy, while recognizing the Jews ownership of the
political rights to Palestine, did not want them to
exercise sovereignty immediately. Nor did the Jews
want to do so. That is because as of 1917 when the
Balfour Policy was being considered by the British, the


Jews in all of Palestine were only 60,000 population out
of a total population of 600,000 as estimated by the
British Foreign Office (BFO). As long ago as 1845, the
Jews had had a plurality of the population of Jerusalem
and in 1863 a majority of the population there. But in all
of Palestine, as of 1917, the BFO estimated Jewish
population at only 10% of the total.
Critics  of  the  Balfour  Policy  had  argued  that  a
government ruled by a "people" that was only a 10%
minority  would  be  "antidemocratic".  The  British
Foreign Ooffice (ìBFOî) countered this argument by
saying  that  even  though  Britain  agreed  with  the
"antidemocratic" argument in principle, as applied to
the  proposed  Balfour  policy  the  argument  was
"imaginary". In a memorandum of September 19, 1917,
Arnold Toynbee and Lewis Namier, speaking for the
BFO, said that the political rights would initially be
placed in trust ó the trustee likely being England or the
United States. The trustee would have legal dominion
over the political rights and although the Jews would
have a beneficial interest, the legal interest would not
vest until such time as the Jews had attained a majority
population in Palestine and were as fully capable of
exercising sovereignty as a modern European state.
Their decision was later incorporated in article 95 of
the treaty of Sevres by a cession of Ottoman sovereignty
over Palestine to that trustee, incorporated in the San
Remo Resolution and to be defined in greater detail in
the Mandate for Palestine.[27]


This same recommendation for a two step process was
incorporated in the discussion in the Briefing Document
of the U.S. Delegation to the Paris Peace Conference, in
"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 contribution 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 sixth of the
total population of 700,000 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." [Note #12, p. 113.]


Woodrow Wilson had stated in 1919 "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."

A Mandate is a trust
The term "Mandate" applied in this context is confusing.
It seems to mean an "order". But construed in the light
of Article 22 of the Covenant or Charter of the League of
Nations, it is clear that in the case of Mandates created
as envisioned by Article 22 of the League Covenant or
charter, such as the Mandates for Palestine, Syria and
Mesopotamia, it means a device which was created
under  the  British  legal  concepts  of  trusts  and
guardianships. This was the conclusion in May of 1921,
about one year after San Remo, by a British barrister
and member of the NY bar Duncan Campbell Lee in his
lecture at University College, London University entitled
"The Mandate for Mespotamia and the Principle of
Trusteeship in English Law." [Note #24] If the Mandate
is a trust, what is the trust res, the thing placed in trust?
It must be the political or national rights to Palestine.
The most important question is "Who is the beneficiary
of the trust? All who have looked at the trust and
compared it with trusts for Syria and Mesopotamia have
concluded that it is World Jewry.
Compare it yourself with the Mandate for Syria and the
Mandate for Mesopotamia. For the latter, "This Organic


law shall be formed in agreement with the native
authorities and shall take into account the rights,
interests and wishes of all the Population inhabiting
the mandated territory, (Article 1 of the Mandate for
Syria and The Lebanon) For Mesopotamia, now Iraq, the
mandate provided: This Organic law shall be framed in
consultation with the native authorities and shall
take into account the rights, interests and wishes of
all the population of the mandated territory. (Article
1 of the Mespotamia [Iraq] Mandate. [emphasis added}
However in the Palestine Mandate, Article 2 says "The
Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country
under  such  political,  administrative  and  economic
conditions as will secure the establishment of the
Jewish national home as laid down in the preamble
and the establishment of self governing institutions"
[emphasis added].
And the preamble states "Whereas the Principle Allied
Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be
responsible  for  putting  into  effect  the  declaration
originally  made  on  November 2,       1917,  by  the
Government  of  His  Britannic  Majesty        [The  Balfour
Declaration] and adopted by the said Powers in favor of
the establishment in Palestine of a national home for
the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that
nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil
and religious rights of the non Jewish communities in
Palestine ... and Whereas recognition has thereby been
given to the historical connection of the Jewish people


with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; ..."

Compare the Mandates
It seems clear that in the other mandates, the rights,
interests and wishes of the then current inhabitants are
to be taken into account but in Palestine Mandate they
were ignored in favor of a Jewish National Home in
which solely the advice of the Zionist Organization was
to be taken into account (Mandate Article 4). In the
Palestine  Mandate  only  Jewish  immigration  was
expressly required to be facilitated with the result that
eventually a Jewish population majority would have
been attained. (Mandate article 6) It therefore appears
that the Jewish National Home was a beneficial interest
in the political rights to Palestine, to mature into a later
legal interest in those rights and sovereignty for them.
However for the non Jews in the existing population, it
provided only protection for their civil and religious
rights  after  Jewish  sovereignty  was  achieved.  It  is
Jewish immigration alone that must be facilitated. It is
the Zionist Organization alone reflecting the rights,
interests and wishes of World Jewry that was the
appointed advisor to the Administration set up by the
trustee to administer the Mandate.
Balfour resigned as foreign secretary following the Paris
Conference in 1919, but continued in the Cabinet as lord
president of the council. In a memorandum of August 11,


1919 addressed to new Foreign Secretary Lord Curzon, he stated ...
"All of the other engagements contained pledges that the Arab or Muslim populations could establish national governments of their own choosing according to the principle of self determination. Balfour explained: "... in Palestine we do not propose to even go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present (majority) inhabitants of the country ..."
Balfour stated explicitly to Curzon: "The Four Great
Powers [Britain, France, Italy and the United States] are
committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong,
good or bad, is rooted in age long traditions, in present
needs, and future hopes, of far profounder import than
the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who
now inhabit that ancient land. In my opinion that is
right." * *  He continued:"I do not think that
Zionism will hurt the Arabs, but they will never say they
want it. Whatever be the future of Palestine it is not
now an 'independent nation', nor is it yet on the way to
become one. Whatever deference should be paid to the
views of those living there, the Powers in their selection
of a mandatory do not propose, as I understand the
matter, to consult them."..."If Zionism is to influence the
Jewish problem throughout the world, Palestine must
be made available for the largest number of Jewish
Was the League of Nations creator or settler of the
trust? No it was the Principal Allied Powers who met at


San Remo according to Douglas Feith [Note #14]. It is
they who by winning the war had the authority to
dispose of the territories as they saw fit. It is also those
Powers, not the League who accepted Britain's offer to
serve as Mandatory Power or Trustee at San Remo.

A Trustee has fiduciary obligations
Britain's  offer  and  the  Principal  Allied  Power's
acceptance of Britain as Trustee on April 25, 1920
created a fiduciary relationship between the beneficiary,
World Jewry, and the Trustee. This principle is so well
recognized in British and American law it needs no
citation. It created a duty that required Britain to give
priority  to  the  beneficiary's  interest  over  its  own
economic  and  political  interests.  The  agreement
between the Grantor and the Trustee was effective in
April, 1920 not 1922, the date when the parties agreed
the Mandate would become effective. This raises a
question  on  whether  Britain  violated  its  fiduciary
responsibilities when it eliminated from the political
rights being placed in trust those pertaining to Eastern
What was the role of the League of Nations? Balfour saw
it only as the instrument to carry out this policy. Balfour,
on presenting the Mandate to the League of Nations
"Remember that a mandate is a self imposed limitation
by  the  conquerors  on  the  sovereignty  which  they
obtained over conquered territories. It is imposed by


the Allied and Associated Powers on themselves in the
interests of what they conceived to be the general
welfare of mankind...." "The League of Nations is not the
author of the policy, but its instrument.... ".
Britain's role was that of the Mandatory or trustee. But
the conquerors, the Principal Allied Powers, did not give
the political rights to World Jewry as a gift. The political
rights were recognized as belonging to the Jews because
of the long "historical connection of the Jewish People
with Palestine" a history extending over some 3,700
years with a continuous presence of Jews during all that

Article 95, Treaty of Sevres ó was it legally effective?
The Turks had regrouped and fought the Allies again
over territories in Europe. So the Treaty of Sevres which
also covered those areas was never ratified by Turkey
but was superseded by the Treaty of Lausanne. By that
time the decisions pertaining to the Middle East were a
fait accompli. By not changing things the Treaty of
Lausanne, in Article 16 and 30 ratified Article 95 of the
treaty of Sevres that was the ruling of the Principal War
Powers on the competing claims of the Arabs and Jews.
That ended any claim of the Ottomans and left its status
up to the other parties concerned. Article 95 had ceded
Ottoman sovereignty over Palestine to the Mandatory
Power in trust for the Jews. Nota bene that the Mandates
for Syria and Mesopotamia were also established in that
treaty. The Syrian Mandate was subsequently divided


into two, a Syrian Mandate into which the Muslims were to be located, and Lebanon for the Christians.

The British truncated the Jewish Political Rights
But an interesting thing happened between the time of
the meeting in San Remo and the confirmation of the
League Mandate for Palestine. The language of the
Mandate was changed to deal differently with Palestine
east of the Jordan River known as "transJordan' in
contrast to cisJordan that referred to Palestine west of
the Jordan, between the Jordan and the Mediterranean
Sea. An Article 25 had been inserted in paragraph 25 of
the later 1922 draft, as it was presented to the League
by Britain. Britain had on April 25, 1920 agreed to
assume the responsibilities of a fiduciary. The later
draft  provided  for  temporarily  suspending  Jewish
settlement in transJordan.

How did this come about? King Hussayn who was then
ruler in the Hedjaz in the Arabian Peninsula had four
sons. Believing that his agreement with the British
resulting  from  his  correspondence  with  McMahon
would  give  him  a  wide  area  covering  Syria  and
Mesopotamia (now  Iraq)  as  well  as  the  Arabian
peninsula, he told his son Feisal that he would rule in
Syria and Abdullah to my recollection in Iraq. The third
son would inherit Hussayn's throne and the fourth one
was not interested in positions of power. In the secret
Sykes Picot agreement, the Governments of Europe split


up  the  former  Ottoman  territory  into  spheres  of
influence.   England   was   to   get   Palestine   and
Mesopotamia (now Iraq), and France would get Syria.
Immediately after the war, England had placed Feisal on
the throne in Syria. When he asserted independence,
France was offended and after the Battle of Maysalun, it
deposed  Feisal.  Abdullah,  who  was  very  warlike,
marched his army into transJordan and made ready to
attack Damascus. Churchill did not want the Arabs to
war against the French so he gave the throne of Iraq to
Feisal. The story can be filled in from the Diary of Sir
Alec Kirkbride, one of three British officers who were
told after WWI to set up governments in transJordan.
After he had set up a government Kirkbride was warned
that Abdullah was marching his army toward his area
and wired the British headquarters in Jerusalem. They
wired back telling Kirkbride to ignore the warning as
Abdullah would never invade a territory being ruled by
His Majesty's government. When Abdullah did, in fact,
show up, Kirkbride had only a few policeman to help
him and wisely decided not to fight. He wired Jerusalem
once again and this time His Majesty's government,
decided that it was a fait accompli. At a meeting in Cairo
on March 21, 1921 Churchill decided the best way out of
this problem was to limit the political rights of the Jews
to Palestine west of the Jordan. Kirkbride then chuckles
over  the  "remarkable  discovery"  made  by  the
government that the framers of the Balfour policy never
really wanted to give all of Palestine to World Jewry for
its Jewish National Home. Why then did the Toynbee


Namier   memorandum   predating   the   Balfour Declaration assume that the 600,000 total population of all of Palestine would be under Jewish rule but for putting the political rights in trust? [29]
As for the Hussayn McMahon correspondence, George
Antonius claimed that the British had promised King
Ibn Hussayn the rule of Syria, and Palestine as well as
the Arabian Peninsula if he got the Arab tribesmen to
revolt against the Ottomans. But as shown by Isaiah
Friedman, Hussayn had told McMahon that he would
get some 258,000 fighters to fight on behalf of the
British and at the most came up with about 5,000.[30] It
appears there was a failure of consideration for any
promise McMahon had made. There was a question on
whether Hussayn was promised any territory that his
own fighters had not conquered. And in fact in Syria and
Palestine none of the Arabs fought on the side of the
British and many fought for the Ottomans. Finally
assuming these were not a problem there was a dispute
over the territory that Hussayn was promised even
though his fighters had conquered it. A line was drawn
that would eliminate territory to the west and south of
the line as being an area that should be under the
control  of  others  and  Palestine  was  excluded  and
according  to  the  British,  Hussayn  understood  that
Palestine  was  excluded.  Moreover  the  British  also
contended that the Hussayn McMahon Correspondence
had never matured into a final agreement.


The change in the Mandate decided after San Remo in March, 1921 was worded only to be a temporary suspension of Jewish settlement in transJordan but transJordan eventually matured into the country of Jordan and was eventually ceded to Abdullah and his Hashemite tribe even though Abdullah and his Tribe was a "foreign power" from the Hedjaz of the Arabian Peninsula, expressly prohibited from receiving any of the political rights in trust.
This, the 1922 White Paper was the first example of
England breaking its obligations to the Jews. It would do
so again and again in the White Papers of 1930 and
1939 even after the confirmation of the Mandate by the
League of Nations in July, 1922. Britain had volunteered
at San Remo in April to be the mandatory power or
trustee of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.
As a trustee it owed the beneficial owner of the trust res
the obligations of a fiduciary. A fiduciary's obligation is
to prefer its beneficiary's interests over those of its own.
Yet England in July, 1922 had persuaded the League to
change the terms of the trust the Principals had agreed
to  at  San  Remo,  to  solve  Britain's  own  political
difficulties with France. This cost the beneficiary, World
Jewry. some 40% of the territory extending east to the
Hejaz Railway that had initially been recognized by the
Principal  Allied  Powers  as  the  area  they  wanted
recognized as Jewish.

Britain's retreat from the Balfour policy.


Through the meeting at San Remo, all the Principal War
Powers were very protective of the rights of World
Jewry. When at San Remo, the French wanted to amend
the "savings clause" saving the "civil and religious
rights" of non Jewish communities when the Jews
ultimately exercised sovereignty in Palestine, to add
"political rights" the British and the other Principal War
Powers declined to accept the amendment. France was
satisfied with a "process verbal" a side agreement noted
in the minutes explaining that the savings clause meant
that the non Jews would not have to surrender any of
their rights. That was acceptable to the others because
all knew that the Arabs in Palestine had never exercised
sovereignty there. The only "people" in Palestine that
had exercised self government in Palestine was the Jews.
After the Churchill White Paper of 1922 diminished
Jewish rights East of the Jordan River, Perfidious Albion
continued to abuse its position as Mandatory Power or
trustee in the British Passfield White Paper of 1930 and
the MacDonald White Paper of 1939. In 1939 it adopted
a  British  White  paper  blocking  further  Jewish
immigration into Palestine West of the Jordan at the
request of the Arabs. It did this despite an express
requirement of the Mandate or trust that the trustee
should "facilitate" Jewish immigration" into Palestine so
that the Jews would ultimately become the majority
population and the Jewish National Home could change
into a reconstituted Jewish state. The 1939 White Paper
would freeze Jewish population at about a one third
minority. It contemplated a grant of self government to


the population of Palestine in 1949 but with Jewish immigration blocked, there would still be an Arab majority.
Many of those who had participated in the original
deliberations  on  the  Balfour  policy  that  had  been
adopted at San Remo strongly objected. David Lloyd
George who had been the Prime Minister of England
then, characterized this action as "an act of national
perfidy which will bring dishonor to the British name."
Winston  Churchill,  in  the  House  of  Commons,
condemned  the  Paper  as  "plainly  a  breach  and
repudiation of the Balfour Declaration" and he referred
to it as "another Munich" (Neville Chamberlain was
Prime Minister in 1939). Harry Truman, then a U.S.
Senator also criticized the 1939 White Paper as a
"repudiation  of  British  obligations"  and  President
Franklin  Roosevelt  expressed  his  "dismay [at]  the
decisions  of  the  British  Government  regarding  its Palestine Policy". That 1939 White Paper even blocked the sale of property in Palestine to the Jews.

The MacDonald 1939 White Paper was Illegal
But even more importantly, the League of Nations
Permanent Mandates Commission whose duty it was to
oversee the Mandatories appointed by the League, was
unanimous that the interpretation on which the 1939


White Paper was based was inconsistent with the
interpretation previously placed on it by the Mandatory.
That  Commission,  by  a  majority,  ruled  that  the
interpretation  was  inconsistent  with  the  express
obligations of the Mandate, i.e. to facilitate Jewish
immigration into Palestine so that the Jews would
become a majority and could become a reconstituted
Jewish State.
Under the terms of the 1939 White Paper a single Arab
majority state was contemplated by 1949, completely
abandoning the objective of the Balfour Agreement.
This was a unilateral measure without the prior consent
of the Council of the League of Nations, therefore
violating Article 27 of the Mandate that required its
approval before any modification. A meeting of that
Council was scheduled for September 8, 1939 but was
never  held  because  of  the  outbreak  of  WWII.
Nevertheless the British, for the next ten years from
1939 until May, 1948 viciously enforced an illegal
blockade preventing Jews from fleeing death in Nazi
extermination  camps  and  later  blocking  Holocaust
survivors from reaching sanctuary in Israel even though
the blockade had been determined to be illegal by the
Permanent Mandates Commission authorized to make
that determination. Its enforcement contributed to the
death of some six million Jews who were trying to flee
from the European Holocaust. It lasted, because of the
obsessed Ernest Bevin, even after the war, blocking
Holocaust survivors from entering a place where they


could received help from others of their people.[31]
In 1947 the British after seeking monetary and military
aid from the United States that was denied, announced
its proposed abandonment in 1948 of its trusteeship
that it said it could no longer afford. The UN, had
replaced the League of Nations as world government,
and this new world government included the United
States as a member. It had as Article 80 of its Charter,
preserved the recognition by its 51 state membership
of the Jews ownership of the political rights to Palestine,
now reduced to Palestine west of the Jordan River. The
UN formed a special committee to determine what
should be done, because of the threatened violence of
the Arabs. [33]

The UN Partition Recommendation

The UN General Assembly, after the Special Committee
completed  its  deliberations,  enacted  a  resolution,
Resolution 181 [34] recommending that Palestine West
of the Jordan should be divided into Arab and Jewish
states and a Corpus Separatum encompassing Jerusalem
and   surrounding   religious   holy   sites.   Such   a
recommendation is of no continuing force and effect
unless both parties to it accept the recommendation.
One party, the Jews, did. They were willing to give up
much of their political rights in exchange for an end to


the threats of violence and so they could aid in the immigration of Holocaust survivors.
The  Secretary  General  of  the  Arab  League  had
threatened war. He said: "This war will be a war of
extermination and a momentous massacre which will
be  spoken  of  like  the  Mongol  massacre  and  the
Crusades."  The  Arabs  declined  to  accept  the
compromise and went to war. The Arab warfare was
initially conducted by Arabs local to Palestine but was
soon joined by seven armies of surrounding Arab States.
Some 450,000 to 700,000 Arabs fled without seeing a
single Jewish soldier although a few at Ramle and Lydda
were  removed  by  the  Jewish  forces  because  after
agreeing to an armistice they had resumed fighting and
the Jews did not want them in back of their lines. As to
almost all the rest, the rich left first, followed by many
more at the urging of the Arab Higher Committee who
asked them to get out of the way of the invading armies.
It predicted the defeat of the Jews in some two weeks
and assured them that the Arabs could then return.
Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) wrote an article in the
official organ of the PLO, "Filastin", complaining of this,
and that when the Arab armies lost, the refugees were
imprisoned in camps in the neighboring Arab states
[35]. Hazam Nusseibeh, who worked for the Palestine
Broadcasting Service in 1948, admitted being told by
Hussein Khalidi, a Palestinian Arab leader, to fabricate
the atrocity claims. Abu Mahmud, a Deir Yassin resident
in 1948 told Khalidi "there was no rape," but Khalidi
replied, "We have to say this, so the Arab armies will


come to liberate Palestine from the Jews." Nusseibeh
told the BBC 50 years later, "This was our biggest
mistake. We did not realize how our people would react.
As soon as they heard that women had been raped at
Deir  Yassin,  Palestinians  fled  in  terror." [36]  This
massacre rumor was also a major contributing factor in
the exodus of Arabs from Palestine. Those who fled
were not invited back by the Jews who won. No peace
treaty was signed until many years later and the Jews
did not want to have a Fifth Column in their midst. The
treaties that were signed with Egypt did not reestablish
normal relations. It has been a cold peace. The peace
with Jordan has perhaps been a little better.
In the 1948 War the Jews weren't 100% successful in
repelling the invasion of the surrounding Arab armies.
Jordan, at the time, had for its armed forces The Arab
Legion, supplied by the British and led by British
Officers. At the same time the Jews were subject to an
arms  embargo.  The  Arab  Legion  was  therefore
successful in invading westward from Jordan, to and
including East Jerusalem. The Egyptian forces moved
north  and  got  as  far  as  the  Gaza  strip.  Under
International Law this territory, having been won in an
aggressive war, the capture of this land did not gain the
invaders the political rights to it. Only Britain and
Pakistan recognized Jordan as holding sovereignty over


Israeli  liberation  of  Judea,  Samaria  and  East Jerusalem
In 1967, once again Arabs threatened to annihilate the
Jews. Egypt blocked Israeli shipping through the Straits
of Tiran and massed tanks and troops on its border with
Israel. It ordered the UN buffer force, established in
1956, to leave and the UN buffer forces left without
even   seeking   UN   approval.   Nasser   threatened
annihilation of the Jews or driving them into the sea.
Israel struck back at Egypt but even after being shelled
by Jordanian artillery, sent a note to King of Jordan
saying that if they stopped the shelling they need not be
a part of the war. Jordan declined and its army in Judea,
Samaria and East Jerusalem was driven back to the
Jordan River by the Jews.


The Mandate system was designed to help states that
had been subject to Ottoman occupation for 400 years,
to become independent after they learned democratic
principles, formed political parties and were able to self
govern. An exception was the Mandate for Israel where
the Jewish People who had been driven out of Palestine
and dispersed by the Romans, were recognized as the
owners of the political rights. There the tacit standard
for ending the Mandate was the attainment of a Jewish
population majority in the area they were to govern and
their capability to exercise sovereignty. [41 43] Before


enacting the Partition Resolution of 1947, the UN in
effect  found  the  Jews  were  capable  of  exercising
sovereignty. The resolution itself was only a failed
recommendation and the partition had no continuing
force and effect. When the trustee, Britain, abandoned
its trust in May, 1948, the beneficiary of the trust, World
Jewry, was the logical entity to get legal dominion of the
political rights that theretofore had been held in trust.
Had the UN thought the Jews were still incapable of the
exercise  of  sovereignty,  in 1948  they  would  have
appointed another trustee. In any event, just three years later, by 1950 the Jews had attained a majority of the population of the area within the Armistice line.

Politics and the Jewish political rights to Palestine
Under the left wing Labour government, Israel has
never directly made a claim under the political or
national rights that its principal, World Jewry, had
under International Law that had been recognized, first
by the Principal War Powers, and then by states. Even
with the change of Paragraph 25 suspending the right to
settle East Palestine, there remained for World Jewry a
right to Palestine west of the Jordan approved by the 51
countries in the League of Nations and by the US, who
had declined membership ó a total of 52 countries. But
the thrust of the Labour Government claim was not the
San Remo Agreement but under facts occurring in 1948
and  thereafter.  The  Israeli  Government  said  that
Jordan's aggression in 1948 resulted in Jordan never


obtaining sovereignty over Judea, Samaria and East
Jerusalem. So when in 1967 in a defensive war, it drove
the Jordanians out of that area, it was thereafter not
engaged in a belligerent occupation. Jordan was not a
legitimate sovereign but was illegally occupying an area
that was disputed and in which the Jews had the better
claim. The Government of Israel never directly made the
claim based on the competing Arab and Jewish claims
made at the Paris Peace talks and the disposition of
them in the Treaty of Sevres, the San Remo Resolution
and the Mandate for Palestine. It only hinted at it.
Now, Douglas Feith, Jacques Gauthier, Howard Grief,
Salomon  Benzimra,  Cynthia  Wallace,  former  Israel
Supreme Court Justice Levy and his two distinguished
colleagues, Alan Baker, Tshia Shapira, the late Julius
Sone and I are directly making that claim. By now it
should be perfectly clear that the claim is not based on
the UN General Assembly partition resolution of 1947,
nor is it based only on facts occurring in 1948 and
thereafter. It is based on facts commencing as early as
1917 when the British adopted its Balfour policy and it
became International Law on the agreement of the
Principal  War Powers  at  San  Remo  in 1920  after
consideration of both the claims of the Arabs and that of
the Jews to the political or national rights to Palestine. It
was  confirmed  by  the  League's  action  on  at  least
Palestine West of the Jordan River by the 51 nations
that were its members. It is based on the presentation
of  the  competing  claims  of  the  Arabs  and  Jews
submitted to the Principal War Powers at the Paris


Peace Conference and the adjudication and ruling on
those claims at San Remo in detail in the order that was
called the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. It is
based on the legal doctrines of "acquired rights" and
"estoppel" that prohibits any state from denying what it
previously admitted or recognized in a treaty or other
international agreement. It is based on Article 80 of the
UN Charter that preserves political rights that had been
recognized by the United States and Principal Allied
Powers in the 1920s. While Chaim Weizmann and some
of the Zionist Organization had been willing to give up
those rights, many had never agreed to it and split off
into another organization headed by Jabotinsky.
Even despite accepting the later loss of transJordan,
Chaim Weizmann, instrumental in obtaining the Balfour
Declaration, was delighted with what was left. Gauthier
has paraphrased[37] Weizmann's reactions to the San
Remo decision, which gave Jews their rights under
international law: "This is the most momentous political
event in the whole history of the Zionist movement, and
it's no exaggeration to say, in the whole history of our
people since the Exile."
What importance do the Arabs place on the Balfour
Declaration? A reviewer of "The Iron Cage: The Story of
the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood" [38] a book by
Columbia Professor Rashid Khalidi who formerly was a
spokesman for the PLO, says "Khalidi has his own set of
external culprits, beyond the blame he is willing to accept
for the Arabs for the nabka or catastrophe as they call it."
The very first of the three listed is "British colonial


masters like Lord Balfour, who refused to recognize the national [political] rights of non Jews; ..." [39]
What then is the rule under International Law? It is "There is no legal claim to national self determination for Palestinian Arabs west of the Jordan River other than as peaceful citizens in a democratic structure covering the area as a whole." [40]
Israel's Legitimacy in Law and History, note #12 supra, pp. 55,56.

Part II: Where There is a Tension Between the
Right of a "People" to Self-determination and
the Right of a Sovereign State to Territorial
Integrity, the Right of the State is Paramount
The Jewish People's State — Eretz Yisrael

International  Law  on  the  question  of  the  Jewish  People's
sovereignty over Palestine between the River Jordan and the Sea
can be summed up in two parts. This following summary was
prepared by the late Eugene Rostow, an acclaimed International
Lawyer, Dean of the Yale Law School and Under Secretary for
Political Affairs in the State Department in the Lyndon Johnson
Administration. It was written in 1991,  just after the OSLO
Agreement was signed.
[Part 1.] "The 1920 mandate [for Palestine] implicitly denies Arab
claims to national political rights in the area in favour of the Jews;
the mandated territory was in effect reserved to the Jewish people
for  their  self-determination  and  political  development,  in


acknowledgment of the historic connection of the Jewish people to the land.
[Part 2.] There remains simply the theory that the Arab inhabitants of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have an inherent "natural law" claim to the area.
Neither  customary  international  law  nor  the  United  Nations
Charter acknowledges that every group of people claiming to be a
nation has the right to a state of its own." Eugene Rostow, The
Future of Palestine, Institute for Strategic Studies, November
1993, [bracketed numbers added]

I found the foregoing summary after I had completed my own
research  and  had  written  a  more  detailed  version. The  only
difference between Rostow's view and mine is that I sprinkled a
little equity jurisprudence in mine making it a little easier to
understand. The law of trusts is incorporated in the body of equity
jurisprudence and helps explain Part I. The Palestine Mandate was
in effect a trust agreement in which Britain held in trust the
political rights recognized in 1920 to belong to the Jewish People.
It therefore had legal dominion over them so long as it was trustee
— see below. The Jewish people owned only a beneficial interest
in these political rights when Britain was trustee. It was not until
1950 that the World Jewry met the tacit standards for vesting of the
trust res.
They met those standards by attaining a population majority in the
defined territory (inside an Armistice boundary) that was under
their rule, and by having the capability of exercising sovereignty
by their unified control over the population inside that boundary
and control over their borders.   The standards for exercising
sovereignty were restated in 1933 in the Montivideo Convention on
the Rights and Duties of States. Now that 20 years have gone by
and the "peace talks" and renunciation of violence have been


proven to be a charade, it is time to contemplate what will come
next. One alternative that hasn't been given a forum is a one lawful
Jewish majority state from the River to the Sea. But two myths
need correcting and a chimera must be dispelled. One myth is that
Jewish sovereignty had its roots in the 1947 UNGA Partition
Resolution 181 and success in battle in 1948, but does not include
Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem that were liberated in 1967. A
history lost in the sands of time shows the roots of the Jewish
People's sovereignty was actually in 1920, not 1947. It is outlined
in  the  San  Remo  Resolution --  word  for  word  the  Balfour
Declaration — and  detailed  in  the  Palestine  Mandate.  This
beneficial interest, awaiting a Jewish population majority in the
area to be ruled, and Jewish capability to exercise sovereignty, was recognized by 53 states in 1922. One of those was the United States. These political rights vested in the Jewish People in 1950 without any fanfare.
The second myth is that the "Palestinian People" is a real rather
than an invented "people" and that they want a right to self-
determination under International Law. This is also not correct.
Part II corrects this myth. I wrote two articles on these questions
that were published by the Think-Israel blog under a non-exclusive license. They are entitled
Soviet Russia, the Creators of the PLO and the Palestinian People ( ).
: W as there a Palestine Arab National Movement at the End of the Ottoman Period?"
( ).
The view that a single Jewish state from the Jordan River to the
Mediterranean Sea would involve giving up on a majority of
Jewish citizenry in Israel is only a chimera. Annexation of Judea
and Samaria would lower the existing Jewish population majority
from 80% to only 66% -- as found by former Ambassador Yoram
Ettinger based on a study of the Begin Sadat Center, but that much
only if every Arab in those territories swore fealty to the Jewish
State to obtain citizenship. He also said that the Jewish birthrate is

significantly greater than the Arab birthrate and is supplemented by significant Jewish immigration from the diaspora. If it becomes necessary to retake Gaza, that territory could be given internal autonomy (like Home Rule) until the Jewish majority in the entire area grows such that adding Gaza would not jeopardize a Jewish population majority. Internal autonomy is much like the current proposals of Netanyahu to the Palestinian Authority.
Palestinian Self-Determination under natural law
          and International Law

In President Obama's recent trip to Israel, he told the students there
[having excluded students from outside the Green Line] that the
Palestinian People had an inalienable right to self-determination.
But he also repeated to Americans many times that if they liked
their health care policies, under ObamaCare they could keep them.
Neither is correct. The UN General Assembly made the same error
on Palestinian self-determination in its Resolution 3236. This
might  be  true  under  natural  law,  but  is  it  the  rule  under International Law?
Does every "people" have a unilateral right to self determination
under International Law? Not the Kurds, nor the Basques. If not,
why should the Arab people living in Palestine have that right?
Many believe that Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points speech in
1918 was the first mention of a right of self--  determination of a
people since the time of John Locke. But Woodrow Wilson's
Fourteen Points speech focused on three colonies of Turkey,
namely Syria, Mesopotamia and Palestine. It was aimed at their
decolonization.  It  was  not  meant  to  deal  with  open  ended
secession. Only 53 years before, the United States had suffered
combat casualties of 215,000 and total casualties of 625,000 in the
American Civil War in denying to the Southern Confederacy the


right of secession. The American Revolutionary War, on the other
hand,  was  a  war  to  obtain  American  self-- determination  by
decolonization.  So  American  history  itself  supports  self-
determination obtained by decolonization but not when sought by
secession where the territorial integrity of a sovereign state is at
Territorial integrity of the sovereign state had been the mainstay of
the new world order established after the Peace of Westphalia in
1648.  It  is  considered  inviolable.  Under  the  current  rule  of
International Law "Without the consent of the existing state, the
international community will not recognize secessionist territories
as sovereign and independent States.* * * There is no general right
of  secession  in  international law. The principle of sovereign
equality of States includes the recognition that the territorial
integrity  of  the  State  is  'inviolable'."  Wheatley,  Democracy,
Minorities and International Law. [emphasis added] And there is
an existing Jewish People's state whether or not the Government of
Israel adopts the Levy Report and annexes Judea and Samaria -as I
discuss below.
Franklin Roosevelt's and Winston Churchill's wartime discussion
of the subject of political self determination, framed on a battleship
in the Atlantic Ocean appeared to be open ended. It was stated as
natural law in the 1941 "Atlantic Charter." But when the right of
self-determination is open ended, there will be a tension between
that right of self-determination of "peoples" with the right of
territorial integrity of sovereign states except when the right of
self-determination of peoples can be met by a decolonization. A
decolonization can be carried out without affecting the boundaries
of a state.
The  first  evolution  of  this  natural  law  on  the  "god  given"
inalienable right of self- determination into International Law was
its mention in the UN Charter adopted in June, 1945 in Article 1


Section 2 provides as one purpose: "To develop friendly relations
among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights
and self-determination of peoples..." But Article 2 (1) preserved
the  territorial  integrity  of  the  sovereign  state:  "The [UN]
Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members."
The next mention of the right of self-determination clearly focused on decolonization. Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples Adopted by General Assembly resolution 1514 of 14 December 1960 provided "2. All peoples have the right to self-determination. . . ."
The next two International Conventions were not clearly focused
on decolonization but did certainly retain the rights of territorial
integrity of the sovereign state. These were enacted in 1966 to
become effective in 1976. They were The International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, and The International Covenant on
Economic,  Social,  and  Cultural  Rights  Article 1.1.  in  each,
provides: "All peoples have the right of self-determination." But
each covenant also reserves the territorial integrity of the sovereign
state. Article 1.3. of each provides: The States Parties to the
present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the
administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall
promote the realization of the right of self determination, and shall
respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter
of the United Nations. [emphasis added] The Charter requires
sovereign  equality  and  hence  the  inviolability  of  territorial
In       1970,  the  UN  General  Assembly  spoke  again  on  self-
determination in the Declaration On Principles Of International
Law Concerning Friendly Relations And Co-Operation Among
States In Accordance With The Charter Of The United Nations.
This provided: "By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-


determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United
Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without
external interference, their political status . . ." But it also said: "
Every State shall refrain from any action aimed at the partial or
total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of any
other  State  or  country." [emphasis  added]  The  most  serious
problem facing Israel today is the split in unity of its people. That split is being fostered by the current action of the United States on the question of Arab self-determination in Palestine west of the Jordan River.
Under International Law, the clear rule is that International Law
supports the self-determination of a "people" when it can be
attained without affecting the boundary of a sovereign state as is
the case in a decolonization. Political scientists, philosophers and
those  in  the  discipline  of  public  administration  have  been
suggesting that the right of self-determination should be available
unilaterally even under secession. The theory attracting the most
followers appears to be that of Allen Buchanan a philosopher at the
University of Wisconsin. He would preserve the strong priority of
territorial integrity of sovereign states over the right of a people to
self-determination but permit secession only as a remedy of last
resort for a "people" when a majority in a state is badly oppressing
a minority with the threat of genocide or cultural extinction. See:
Buchanan, The International Institutional Dimension of Secession
in Lehning, Theories of Secession at pp. 241-247, justifying the
need for a priority for territorial integrity. Other non-lawyers would
not even require that an entire "people" want to secede but would
permit it for any cohesive group nor would they require it to be a
last resort. They do require that it be fair to the minority in the
territory removed as well as not removing anything vital to the
continued existence of those in the remaining territory.

How do these principles apply to the Arab Israeli


First, that conflict is res judicata under International Law and has
been since 1920. In 1919 the Arab and Jewish People brought to
the Paris Peace Talks their competing claims for Palestine. King
Hussein, the initial representative of the Arab People, also claimed
Syria (now Syria and Lebanon) and Mesopotamia (now called
Iraq). The World Zionist Organization sought only Palestine,
asking only in effect for what the British Balfour Declaration
policy had promised them. That was recognition initially of an
equitable interest in the political rights to Palestine but when the
Jews attained a population majority in the area to be governed and
had the capability of exercising sovereignty, it was the intention to
have  the  rights  vest  so  they  could  reconstitute  a  Jewish
Commonwealth.  Until  that  time  the  British  as  trustees  or
mandatory, were to have legal dominion over these rights with the
authority  in  the  mandate  or  trust  agreement  of  legislation,
administration and adjudication. That was a precaution taken to
avoid  an  antidemocratic  government  according  to  a  memo
(9/17/1917)  of  the  British  Foreign  Office  written  by  Arnold
Toynbee and Lewis Namier. The same intention was noted in the
briefing documents the American diplomats carried with them to
the Paris Peace Talks. That the mandate was simply a trust
agreement was early recognized by a British barrister in 1921, Lee,
The Mandate for Mesopotamia and the Principle of Trusteeship in
English Law, (1921) League of Nations Union, Forgotten Books
Critical Reprint Series (2012). The International Court of Justice
later followed the same view in its decision on Namibia Legal
Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa
in Namibia (South West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council
Resolution 276 (1970) Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971" some 50
years later.
The mandatory or trustee was to facilitate Jewish immigration. It


was expected that Jewish immigration from the diaspora would take a long time to effect a majority Jewish population, therefore the mandatory power was prohibited from ceding any of the land to any foreign party in the interim. The mandatory or trustee was to facilitate Jewish immigration.
At the Paris Peace Talks in 1919 the focus was on the European
claimants of territories in Europe but when the Allies reconvened
in San Remo in April, 1920, they recognized the Jewish People as
the owners of the political rights to Palestine due to its long history
of association with that area. On April 25th they adopted the
Balfour  Declaration  word  for  word  as  their  decision  on  the
competing claims to Palestine of the Jewish People and Arab
people. They rejected a French proposal to amend the Balfour
Declaration to include "political rights" in the savings clause which
saved for the non Jewish communities only their "civil" and
"religious rights". The Arab then current majority inhabitants of
Syria and Mesopotamia were awarded a beneficial interest in the
political  rights  to  those  territories  and  eventually  became
sovereigns of those states.
The Ottomans (Turkey) ceded their sovereign rights to Palestine in
the Treaty of Sevres to the Mandatory Power. That treaty was
never ratified but in the later Treaty of Lausanne, Turkey released
any claim to these territories, the disposition of which by that time
as a British Mandate, was a fait accompli. In 1922 the 52 members
of the League of Nations and the US had approved the terms of the
Palestine Mandate except for truncating the territory to the that part
of Palestine west of the Jordan River, reducing its area by about
By 1950 the Jews had unified control and a population majority of
the area they governed within the Armistice Boundary (The Green
Line) and Britain had abdicated its responsibilities as trustee in
1948. In 1967 the Jews drove out Jordan and Egypt from the areas


they were illegally occupying based on their aggressive war in
1948. So-- do the "Palestinian People" have the unilateral right , to
secede from the Jewish People's State? The Government of Israel,
the agent of the Jewish People has so far not asserted sovereignty
over the territories of Judea and Samaria. This was likely because
the lawyers under the former labor government had held the Jews
held the land liberated in 1967 in "belligerent occupation". But
they were mistaken. That is because a belligerent occupier is one
who has captured the land from a legitimate sovereign. That is
assumed in Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Convention: "Art. 43.
The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the
hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his
power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and
safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in
force in the country."
Jordan never gained sovereignty over any land west of the Jordan
River because it had captured it in an aggressive war. No Arab
state recognized Jordan as the sovereign of this territory. In the
whole world only two states recognized Jordan as sovereign over
territory  in  the  West  Bank  because  to  do  so  would  violate
International Law of long standing custom as well as the UN

Eretz Yisrael, the Jewish People's Sovereign State

The Government of Israel, the agent of World Jewry has asserted
sovereignty over East Jerusalem but not over Judea and Samaria.
But those areas also meet the tacit test of the Mandate for vesting
of a legal interest in the political rights to those territories. Israel
has already asserted its sovereignty over East Jerusalem. And
whether the Government of Israel asserts sovereignty or not, 1, The
Jewish People have control over Judea and Samaria subject only to


the OSLO agreement — an agreement that neither Israel nor its
principal need continue to observe because of its material breach
by the Arabs, and 2. The Government of Isreal has asserted
sovereignty over East Jerusalem that the so called Palestinians claim. That means that the Israel territorial boundaries would have to  be  redrawn  to  accommodate  the  territory  the  Palestinian Authority demands.

Russia's Role

Since 1950 the Soviet Union has sought domination of the Middle East as a stepping stone to hegemony over Western Europe according to the late Eugene Rostow, Dean of the Yale Law School and  Professor  of  International  Law  in  Palestinian  SelfDetermination: Possible Futures for the Unallocated Territories of the Palestine Mandate (1980)
"For nearly thirty turbulent years, the Soviet Union has sought control of this geo political nerve center in order to bring Western Europe into its sphere. Even if Soviet ambitions were confined to Europe, Soviet hegemony in the Middle East would profoundly change the world balance of power. But Soviet control of the Middle East would lead inevitably to further accretions of Soviet power if China, Japan, and many smaller and more vulnerable countries should conclude that the United States had lost the will or the capacity to defend its vital interests, . . ."

"The exploitation of Arab hostility to the Balfour Declaration, the
Palestine Mandate, and the existence of Israel has been a major
weapon in the Soviet campaign to dominate the Middle East." * *

* ". . .the Soviet Union invited Arafat to Moscow, supported his appearance before the United Nations in November, 1974, and increased its pressure for General Assembly resolutions supporting claims  of  self-determination  for  the  Palestinian  Arabs  and denouncing Zionism as "racism'"
Even if philosopher Allen Buchanan's last resort theory instead of
International Law were to be applied, the only evidence of the
peoplehood of the so called Palestinian People and their claim to a
desire for self-determination can be found in the preamble of the
1964 Charter of the PLO drafted in Moscow and corroborated only
by the first 422 members of the Palestinian National Council, each
hand picked by the KGB. In WWI the Palestininan Arabs were
offered self government if they fought on the side of the Allies --
they didn't; some fought for the Ottomans. In 1947 Count Folke
Bernadotte found the Palestinian Arabs were not interested in
nationalism and never had been. And in 1973 Zahir Muhsein, a
member of the Executive Board of the PLO admitted to a Dutch
newspaper that there was no Palestinian "People" -- it was only a
political ploy and that once the Jews were annihilated, the PLO
would merge with Jordan. The circumstances surrounding the
drafting of the 1964 PLO Charter and its corroboration we have
from the personal knowledge of Major General Ion Pacepa, the
highest ranking defector from the Soviet bloc during the Cold War.
Even if they were a real People, the Palestinians in the Jewish
People's  State  are  not  threatened  with  genocide  nor  cultural
extinction. Each year the Palestinian population grows larger.
Arabic is a second official language of Israel. The Arabs control
their own schools and use them to incite against the Jews.
If  the  no priority-for-Sovereign State territorial-integrity  theory
were to be applied, what of the plight of the minority in the
territory to be removed, and the plight of the majority of those
remaining which those theorists say must be fair? The loss of the
Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem would mean the loss to the


Jewish People 1. of defensible borders, 2, their cultural heritage including the Western Wall of the Temple Mount, and 3. the civil rights of those in the territory removed as the Arabs are clear that all Jews would be expelled from the territory removed from the Jewish People's state.
Further facts and law on the above are available in Benzimra, The
Jewish  People's  Rights  to  Israel  under  International  Law,
published by Amazon on Kindle in 2011 and Part I of the present

Vietnam Redux

Of the two biggest threats to Israel, one is a nuclear Iran. The other is the split in the unity of the Jewish People in Israel and the diaspora over Judea and Samaria.
It was Brezhnev who pushed Arafat to drop the slogan that the
PLO was going to annihilate the Jews or push them into the sea,
and instead claim they were liberating the Palestinian People; to
pretend to renounce violence and pretend to seek peace. The
Vietnamese General Giap also counseled him to do this to split the
unity of the American people — it had worked so well for North
When Netanyahu approves the Levy Report and asserts Jewish
sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, the question of statehood for
the so called Palestinian People becomes an internal matter of the
sovereign state of Israel as well as the Jewish People's state, Eretz
Yisrael, and the UN requires that other states not disrupt that unity.
" Every State shall refrain from any action aimed at the partial or
total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of any


other State or country." Declaration On Principles Of Operation Among States In Accordance With The Charter Of The United Nations (1970)

1. Levy Report, English Translation, translation of legal
arguments.html?goback=%2Egde_3188536_member_1 34228375
2. Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49,
3. San Remo Resolution, remo resolution/p15248
4. Balfour Declaration, D9E1D052565FA00705C61
5. British Mandate for Palestine, (1922)
See Hertz, "Mandate for Palestine," Appendix A, alestine/mandate_for_palestine.htm or
http://www.think html.html. Both versions include maps and additional material.
6. Sovereignty Over the Old City of Jerusalem; A Study of
the Historical, Religious, Political and Legal Aspects of the


Question of the Old City, submitted by Dr. Jacques
Gauthier as a thesis to the University of Geneva in 2007.
7. Howard Grief, Legal Foundations and Boundaries of Israel under International Law
8. Salomon Benzimra, The Jewish Peoples' Rights to the Land of Israel
9. Wallace Brand, op ed, Part 1: aspx/11408. Part 2: spx/11412.
10. Cynthia Wallace, "Foundations of the International
Legal Rights of the Jewish People and the State of Israel
and the Implications for the Proposed New Palestinian
11. translation of legal
arguments.html?goback=%2Egde_3188536_member_1 34228375
12. Israel's Legitimacy in Law and History, edited by Edward M. Siegel, Esq., Center for Near East Policy Research, New York (1993). pp 113.
13."Israel's Legal Right to Samaria," legal rights to samaria.html
14. Douglas Feith, "A Mandate for Palestine,"
/Israel_and_palestine_mandate_for_israel.htm. Elliott A.
Green, "International Law regarding the State of Israel


and Jerusalem," Think, http://www.think
15. Theodor Meron opinion: e48485.pdf
16. Talia Sasson report: israel settlement money 089/
17. translation of legal
arguments.html?goback=%2Egde_3188536_member_1 34228375
19. Alan Baker, "The Settlements Issue: Distorting the
Geneva Convention and the Oslo Accords," settlements issue
distorting the geneva convention and the oslo
20. Levy Report, English Translation, supra. Note #1.
21. UNGA Resolution 181, 1947 Partition Recommendation
23.Howard Grief "Legal Rights and Title of Sovereignty of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel and Palestine
under International Law" NATIV/02
issue/grief 2.htm [bracketed material added]


24. Lee, The Mandate for Mesopotamia and the Principle
of Trusteeship in English Law, (1921) League of Nations
Union, Forgotten Books Critical Reprint Series (2012).
See also the International Court of Justice decision in
25. ay/big/1111.html#article
27. Treaty of Sevres Article 95,
28 Memorandum from Lord Balfour to Lord Curzon, August 11, 1919, Document number 242 from: EL Woodward and Rohan Butler, Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919 1939. (London: HM Stationery Office, 1952), 340 348.
29. Kirkbride, A Crackle of Thorns, Chapter 3
30. Friedman, Palestine: A Twice Promised Land, Vol. 1:
The British, the Arabs, and Zionism, 1915 1920. (2000)
31. Sacher, The Establishment of a Jewish State, London (1952), Hyperion Reprint edition, 1976
32. Benzimra, The Jewish Peoples Rights to the Land of Israel., note #8
33. See: "Acts of Aggression Provoked, Committed, and
Prepared by Arab States in Concert with the Palestine
Arab Higher Committee against the Jewish Population of
Palestine in an Attempt to Alter by Force the Settlement


Envisaged by the General Assembly's Resolution on the
Future Government of Palestine," memorandum
submitted by the Jewish Agency for Palestine to the
United Nations Palestine Commission, Feb. 2, 1948;
Moshe Shertok, "Letter from the Jewish Agency for
Palestine Dated 29 March 1948, Addressed to the
Secretary General Transmitting a Memorandum on Acts
of Arab Aggression," UNSC, S/710, Apr. 5, 1948.
34. UNGA Res 181, Recommending Partition, note #21, supra.
35. Wall St. Journal, board.php?az=view_all&address=124x352032
36.Myth and Fact MFrefugees.html
37. our redeemable
right jews hold legal sovereignty over israels p10173
38. The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood by Rashid Khalidi (Oct 15, 2006)
[bracketed material added]
39. "Assessing the Role Palestinians Have Played in the Failed Bid for Statehood," Steven Erlanger, NY Times, Oct. 7, 2006.
40. Riebenfeld, "The Legitimacy of Jewish Settlement in Judea, Samaria and Gaza," in Edward M. Siegel, ed.,


41. Tulin, Book of Documents submitted to the United
Nations General Assembly Relating to the National Home for the Jewish People, The Jewish Agency, New York,
1947, p. 5,6. Some additional evidence supporting the propositions in the foregoing pages: In approving the Balfour Declaration, Leopold Amery, one of the
Secretaries to the British War Cabinet of 1917 1918
testified under oath to the Anglo American Committee of Inquiry in January, 1946 from his personal
knowledge [Tr. 1/30/46, p 112] that:

1.       He believed that the Jewish National Home was an
          experiment to determine whether there would
          eventually be a Jewish majority over the whole of
2.       He believed that the territory for which political
          rights were to be recognized was intended to
          include all of Palestine both east and west of the
          Jordan River.
3. He had always assumed that the particular
reference to not infringing the civil or
religious liberties of Arab population was not so much a safeguard against the British
Government infringing those liberties  . . ., but a
Jewish state infringing those liberties. Therefore, at the time that possibility of a Jewish majority
over the whole of the larger Palestine was, he
thought envisaged.
4. The phrase “the establishment in Palestine of a
          National Home for the Jewish people” was


intended and understood by all concerned to
mean at the time of the Balfour Declaration that
Palestine would ultimately become a “Jewish
Commonwealth” or a “Jewish State”, if only Jews
came and settled there in sufficient numbers.
5. Recalled that Lloyd-George had testified earlier
          (likely in 1939 at the time of the 1939 White

“...There could be no doubt as to what the
Cabinet then had in mind. It was not their idea
that a Jewish State should be set up immediately by the Peace Treaty…. On the other hand, it was contemplated that when the time arrived for
according representative institutions to Palestine, if the Jews had meanwhile responded to the
opportunity afforded them … and had become a definite majority of the inhabitants, then Palestine would thus become a Jewish
Commonwealth. The notion that the Jews should
be a permanent minority never entered into the
heads of anyone engaged in framing the
policy. That would have been regarded as unjust,
and as a fraud on the people to whom we were


42.  Leonard Stein, The Balfour Declaration.  ìThat the
Declaration paved the way for a Jewish State seems to
judging from the press, to have been taken for granted.
The headlines in the London newspapers ñ ëA state for
the Jewsí (Daily Express) ñ ëPalestine for the Jewsí (The
Times, Morning Post, Daily News).  The Spectator wrote
of ëthe proposal for the establishment of a Jewish State
in  Palestine.í The  Manchester  Guardian  saw  the
Declaration as leading to ëthe ultimate establishment of a Jewish State.í The Observer wrote: ëIt is no idle dream that by the close of another generation the new Zion may become a state.í Pp. 562, 63
And ìWhen Balfour met Brandeis in Paris in June 1919,
he remarked . . . . that Palestine represented a unique
situation.  We are dealing not with the wishes of an
existing community but are consciously seeking to re
constitute a new community and definitely building for
a numerical majority in the futureí He had, he went on,
great difficulty in seeing how President Wilson could
reconcile his adherence to Zionism with the doctrine of
self determination, to which Brandeis replied that ëthe
whole conception of Zionism as a Jewish homeland was
a definite building up for the future as the means of
dealing with a world problem and not merely with the
disposition of an existing community. ë Balfour gave the
argument a slightly different turn at his interview with
Meinertzhagen a few weeks later. ë  He agreed . . . in
principle, Meinertzhagen wrote in his diary (30 July
1919), in the principle of self determination, but it


could not be indiscriminately applied to the whole world, and Palestine was a case in point . . . In any Palestinian plebiscite the Jews of the world must be consulted in which case he sincerely believed that an overwhelming  majority  would  declare  for  Zionism under a British mandate.í P.649

43. Public Hearings Before the Anglo American
Committee of Inquiry, Jerusalem (Palestine) 8[ 26] March, 1946, Albert Hourani, The Case Against a
Jewish State in Palestine. Statement to the Anglo
American Committee of Enquiry of 1946

ì. ë ë speaking as a member of the Arab Officeóand I
believe as the last witness who will appear on the Arab
sideóI think it is right to emphasize, without
elaborating what needs no further elaboration, the
unalterable opposition of the Arab nation to the attempt
to impose a Jewish State upon it. This opposition is
based upon the unwavering conviction of unshakeable
rights and a conviction of the injustice of forcing a long
settled population to accept immigrants without its
consent being asked and against its known and
expressed will; the injustice of turning a majority into a
minority in its own country; the injustice of withholding


self government until the Zionists are in the majority and able to profit by it. P. 80 

No comments:

Post a Comment