ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-Yr
How many times have you heard “Jewish settlers and the JNF purchased “territory” in Palestine “
“In the spring of 1903 JNF-KKL purchased its first parcel of land: 50 acres in Hadera with funds given as a gift by the well-known philanthropist Isaac (Yitzhak Leib) Goldberg”
“By 1905, JNF-KKL’s land holdings had expanded to include land near the Sea of Galilee, and at Ben Shemen in the center of the country”
“By 1921, JNF-KKL purchases of land had quadrupled its land holdings, bringing them up to 25,000 acres”
Again, from the Israeli Land Fund:
“The State of Israel today was built on land which was legally purchased by Jewish organizations such as the Jewish National Fund (JNF) and other private individuals.”
As always, the Hasbara has a gaping big hole. The Jewish National Fund trips up on its own lies. The JNF also says:
“These are not State lands“
The 7% of ‘real estate/land/property’ purchased by Jewish institutions, Jewish individuals was minuscule compared to the whole amount of ‘territory’ allotted by UNGA res 181 and accepted as binding by the Jewish Agency for the Jewish State. Some 56% of Palestine in 1947/48.
‘land’ is ‘real estate’ or ‘property’ owned by civilians, companies, trusts, corporations, banks, even Government Departments & institutions. In some countries, foreign companies and Government institutions can own ‘real estate’. It is their ‘property’, however it does not give them any sovereignty over the ‘real estate / land / property’, nor does it give them any ‘territorial’ rights. (Note how the UN does not say ‘land’)
‘territory’ belongs to the legitimate citizens of the ‘territory’, whether they own ‘real estate/property’, lease or rent ‘real estate/property’ or are propertyless, homelss bums living under a bridge. It is their right to determine which state their ‘territory’ will belong. The Jewish National Fund was not a citizen of Palestine, nor did it represent legitimate citizens of Palestine 1947/48.
Israel paid NOTHING for its ‘territory’. Not one shekel, nada. Israel now sells land to Jews who are allegedly ‘returning’.
Before the US conducted a referendum amongst US representatives to annex Texas, a referendum was held amongst the legitimate citizens of Texas, whether they owned real estate, rented or leased real estate. Texas was annexed to the US on behalf of the legitimate citizens of Texas. The US annexation of Texas, Hawaii and Alaska by the legal custom of having an agreement, was eventually instrumental in that legal custom eventually passing into Customary International Law and furthermore forming some of the basis of the notion of self determination.
No such referendum has been ever been conducted on behalf of the people whose ‘territory’ was assigned to the Jewish state and the ‘territories’ Israel has occupied for 67 years. Israel has never legally annexed any territory.
Territory may be ‘restored’ to a sovereign, however it is inadmissible to ‘acquire’ territory by war. Any war!
All Members shall refrain; in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
One of the ‘Purposes of the United Nations’ is contained in the UN Charter
CHAPTER XI: DECLARATION REGARDING NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES – Article 73 Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:.. etc etc
By occupying Palestinian territory “outside the State of Israel”, Israel has assumed responsibility for its administration.
First, find out what isn't true... 
hi,
what a wonderful work you have done!
just impressing!
thank you so much.
i’m in a battle about san remo LoN etc. in the comment line of nzz.ch
while one of my adversary hinted to me to check howard grief, i found
some wonderful quotes from howard grief which will debunk these people!
the man who advocated howard grief is most probably deploring having done so!
see this:
Howard Grief speaking at The Jewish Authority in the Land of Israel
http://www.neemney-eretz.022.co.il/BRPortal/br/P100.jsp
http://www.neemney-eretz.022.co.il/BRPortal/br/P100.jsp video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Qf3Ogx8JHg#t=73 video
min. 2:34 it was not a signed agreement…..
min. 3:08 it’s a shame that the state of israel never mention the san remo resolution….
Comment by ruedi bosshart — December 14, 2013 @ 7:50 pm
Howard Grief is insane. There’s no mention of a Jewish ‘state’ in the San Remo documents or the Balfour declaration
The LoN Mandate FOR Palestine Article 7 tells us it was to be a Palestinian state http://wp.me/PDB7k-Q#Mandate
neemney-eretz.022.co.il/ is filled with ignorant nonsense like this stupidity
The West Bank (Judea and Samaria) are not even a part of Israel. They’re Occupied Territories.
Comment by talknic — December 19, 2013 @ 7:27 pm
Very nice article. I certainly love this site. Thanks!
Comment by Hyipfrance — September 13, 2012 @ 7:45 pm
Thanks…. please fell free to copy and use
Comment by talknic — September 14, 2012 @ 3:08 am
Even though the Jewish Agency clearly accepted the resolution as binding, is it actually legally binding?
When arguing about the legality of the settlement, I’m often confronted with a quote from the Mandate stating the Jewish right to ‘close settlement’ of the land. It seems that although there is nearly an international legal consensus on the issue of the settlements, I can’t find a single document that lays out a clear counterargument to this right to close settlement. If it were the case that 181 was legally binding, would it then follow that the Mandate for Palestine (and therefore article 6) was superseded?
Comment by Bradfordian — June 3, 2012 @ 11:01 pm
Sorry, not sure why my comment registered as anon.
Comment by Bradfordian — June 3, 2012 @ 11:04 pm
Hi, you’re likely anonymous because you’ve not registered an mail address with your post/s. I don’t check unless people are abusive
“close settlement” is not “state”
The Mandate had to end BEFORE either party could have declared themselves “independent”. It is a prerequisite to actually be ‘independent’, free of the control of any other entity. The territory allotted for the Jewish state under UNGA res 181, was entirely under Jewish control on May 15th 1948.
However, as Jewish forces already controlled/occupied parts of those territories by May 14th 1948, certainly by 22nd May 1948 and 12 Aug 1948,. The Arab States could not declare independence over the territories allotted the new Arab State within the period 14th May ’48 – Oct ’48. Palestine has never been entirely free of some form of occupation since the Roman era. The Palestinian have never actually had an opportunity to miss.
The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel was binding on Israel. It was the final act of accepting UNGA res 181, now enshrined in the Declaration.
Once recognized, a declaration of Sovereign Independence is irrevocable/binding. Majority rules. It’s binding on the International Community of Nations, including Israel AND those states who did not recognize Israel. “Recognition of a state simply means that the state recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law. Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable”
All states are required to have “respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force” even if they haven’t recognized the state in question. We can see this by the fact that the UN has numerous instances where Member States do not recognize each other.
Israel drew its line in the sand and it is binding. It is the reason there are so many UNSC resolutions condemning Israel and not the Arab States . It is the reason the UNSC resolutions call for “peace in Palestine”, not ‘in Israel’.
Comment by talknic — June 4, 2012 @ 10:10 am
Thanks for the reply. I think I posted as anon because I forgot to refresh my original tab after logging in on a new one.
Anyway, It seems that this is still being discussed as a legal argument for Jewish (if not Israeli) settlement of the land. the-american-interest.com presents it as a legitimate argument in their article ‘Are the Settlements Illegal?’.
A cursory search of Wikipedia gives the Israeli government’s legal argument that article 80 of the UN charter preserved this right to ‘close settlement’, and mythsandfacts.org say:
‘In other words, neither the ICJ nor the UN General Assembly can arbitrarily change the status of Jewish settlement as set forth in the “Mandate for Palestine,” an international accord that has never been amended’
and ‘the Mandate for Palestine… set forth the irrevocable Jewish legal rights to settle anywhere in western Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered by international law and valid to this day.’
If the Mandate was rendered inapplicable by the declaration of independence, it seems odd that this could still be presented as a legitimate legal argument. Don’t get me wrong, I agree with your assessment, but I find it strange that this is still being discussed. In fact, it seems to be the go-to argument these days, along with copypasta from Howard Greif’s books and articles. Do you think it is perhaps because there hasn’t been a clear refutation by the ICJ or UN body with a legal remit? I know both have ruled and presented advisory opinions on the legality of Israeli settlement based on their reading of the laws of occupation and 4th GC, but neither appear to have unequivocally stated that the articles in the Mandate are no longer applicable.
Comment by Bradfordian — June 5, 2012 @ 7:17 pm
Hi Bradfordian,
the-american-interest: Their ‘legitimate argument’ is pure Hasbara. Full of huge holes.
What a stupid statement. Peace is illusive because Israel has contrary to International Law, the Laws of War, the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions, allowed them to exist, promoted them, subsidized and protected them and refused to adhere to the Law, the UN Charter, the GC’s and the UNSC resolutions.
UNSC resolution 476 (one of six reminders of UNSC res 252) says: “3. Reconfirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;”
It’s simply nonsense. The Peace Treaty between Israel and Egypt tells us Israel agreed it would withdraw from Egyptian territory BEFORE peaceful relations resumed.
UNSC resolution 497
mythsandfacts: Is likewise Hasbara. Full of holes.
According to the Israeli Government (first line), the Mandate ended May 14th 1948. The Mandate had to end before any party could declare independence. Israel was declared as the Jewish People’s homeland state. It’s not the same as the Jewish People’s Historic homeland. The Zionist Federation blew it.
Wikipedia: is based on published opinion, not facts or truth. Read it’s myriad of editorial policies.
We’re not constricted here by inane policies preventing the publication of Primary Documents which show a lot of the Israeli weighted opinion, in Wikipedia by consensus of course, is simply propaganda. Wikipedia is a waste of time and effort in respect to the I / P conflict. A good example of the gaping flaws in Wikipedia’s editorial policies. Read the Talk Pages.
“If the Mandate was rendered inapplicable by the declaration of independence,”
The Mandate wasn’t rendered inapplicable by any declaration of independence. It ended BEFORE any declaration of independence could be effective. In order to be independent, one cannot be under the control of someone else. British control had to end. Why didn’t the Jewish People’s Council declare before the Mandate expired?
“.. it seems odd that this could still be presented as a legitimate legal argument”
Propagandists will say anything. They don’t care. They depend on people not checking and on their propaganda being spread by folk who haven’t checked or by people who don’t care.
Howard Greif: Spouts Hasbara. None of his arguments actually stacks up to the documents he cites.
“Do you think it is perhaps because there hasn’t been a clear refutation by the ICJ or UN body with a legal remit?”
No. You need to read the ICJ opinions and rulings in total, including whether they have jurisdiction on the questions put before them and; whether it is an advisory opinion or a judgement. Cherry picking and twisting their statements is a favourite Hasbara technique. So is twisting and cherry picking statements and claiming they were made by Judges of the ICJ, when at the time they voiced their opinions they were not actually actively serving on the bench.
“..neither appear to have unequivocally stated that the articles in the Mandate are no longer applicable”
Who would dare be so stupid as to ask them? The Mandate expired May 14th 1948.
Comment by talknic — June 6, 2012 @ 1:35 am
Thanks for the info. I try to read as much as possible, but I can’t say I’ve researched the matter exhaustively. Most hasbara can be refuted if you’ve read the Balfour/San Remo/Mandate/UN charter in enough detail, but this seems to be a sticking point. It’s hard enough fighting against the ad hominem attacks on talkbacks/comments anyway, so expecting people to accept that the Mandate ended in its entirety in may 1948 when there are so many ‘sources’ that say otherwise is unrealistic. Believe me, I’ve tried.
Who would dare be so stupid as to ask them? The Mandate expired May 14th 1948.
Sometimes it is necessary to ask the stupid questions. A least part of the reason this propaganda war is still being fought is because the judges haven’t cleared this up.
I don’t mean to belittle your good work here, Talknic, but Wikipedia is the first port of call for laymen. Likewise, if you Google ‘settlement legality’ and its variations, there are pages and pages of openly Zionist websites that refer to article 6 of the Mandate and article 80 of the UN charter. Blogs like yours appear few and far between. This is, I feel, an important aspect of the wider conflict. One reason that opinions have become entrenched is that many view the OTs as Israeli territory. When the Palestinians demand that they stop building on it, and when they demand that it be returned, Israelis feel as though they are ceding Israeli land.
My point is that Israelis need to see alternative viewpoints in order to change their own. If the internet is full of hasbara that touts the Mandate as still being in force, they see it as confirmation of their beliefs. If the ICJ/UN were to explicitly say that all of the Mandate’s provisions ended in 1948, it would significantly weaken this central tenet of their argument. Of course, hoping for such a thing is probably wishful thinking, but before I posted here I was searching for such a document.
[apologies if my HTML italic tags don’t work btw, I’ve never used them in a wordpress comment]
Comment by Bradfordian — June 6, 2012 @ 1:17 pm
A few points relating to the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine where the Hasbara is easily shown to be only denial of the facts.
Like all such important documents, every word, punctuation mark, sentence, paragraph and reference, was debated and refined until the final draft was written as precisely as possible so as to understand its meaning. Only the final draft means what it says. One can only use the actual words of legal documents to explain their meanings. Points needing clarification are already contained within the document, with the relevant references. The final document is a compilation of points in the order of importance in which they are written.
Start at the top and read exactly what is there.
Top of the page:
Simple. The Mandate is for Palestine.
Mandate for Palestine, first paragraph, (one sentence):
Again simple. The British became the administrating Mandatory over the Provisional State of Palestine by selection, not by conquest, and; as the Mandatory, they could fix the boundaries of the territories of Palestine.
The first paragraph has defined the purpose of the Mandate, the status of the territories to be administered and how the boundaries of those territories could be eventually defined.
Mandate for Palestine, 2nd paragraph, (one sentence):
“the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917” did not say a Jewish State. A point further clarified by the British White Paper of June 1922
And the British White Paper of 1939
Mandate for Palestine Article 7:
So did the Mandate Expire?
UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (Partition Plan) November 29, 1947
Again:
From the Israeli Government Website
The Hasbara as always, is full of Red Heifer sh*t and devoid of facts
Comment by talknic — June 8, 2012 @ 6:45 am
MORE
Wikipedia is the first port of call for laymen
For the I/P issue, Wikipedia is next to useless, the editorial policy is not facts, but published opinions.
Likewise, if you Google ‘settlement legality’ and its variations, there are pages and pages of openly Zionist websites that refer to article 6 of the Mandate and article 80 of the UN charter.
It’s typical gobble de gook of the Hasbara.
Article 6 of the Mandate (they forget to read Article 7)
Article 80 of the UN Charter is under CHAPTER XII: INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEESHIP SYSTEM
There was no Chapt XII Trusteeship agreement over Palestine. Between 1922 and 1948 the Mandatory had responsibilities for the administration of the territories of Palestine. It continued under The UN Charter Chapt XI
Comment by talknic — June 8, 2012 @ 9:59 am
I understand your frustration very well. The ludicrous idea that the Mandate gave Jewish sovereignty over all of Mandatory Palestine to the end of time (Howard Grief version); or gave all the Jews in the world the right to migrate into Mandatory Palestine until the end of time (Eugene Rostow version) is indeed very persistent. It is ludicrous not only because the Mandate was a temporary arrangement, but also because the Mandate never gave any RIGHTS to Jews in Palestine: the words are just not there. The ICJ has not given an opinion on this argument, because the case has never been presented to them, because not even the Government of Israel thinks there is any merit in it. But the ICJ and the UN have said that the settlement program is illegal, many many times, but without effect.
The people I feel sorry for are the (apolitical) settlers, who have been deceived by their government into believing they can legally and safely move their families into a military zone. There could be big trouble ahead if a peace agreement with the Palestinians requires many of them to return to Israel.
Comment by Walk Tall Hang Loose — October 6, 2013 @ 1:53 pm
Hi Bradfordian ,
Although UNGA resolutions themselves are non-binding, they often reiterate and contain International and Customary Law (all law is binding). UNSC resolutions (binding). Conventions (binding on UN members who have ratified them. When a majority of States have adopted a law or convention, it automatically passes into Customary International Law).
UNGA res 181: The resolution’s basic recommendation was the formation of two independent states and a corpus separatum.
Independence is by its very nature unilateral. It cannot be forced, demanded, in partnership with or requiring a co-signature or; declared whilst any territories being declared are under occupation.
There could not be any obligation on either party to accept the recommendation or; any declaration of independence by either party while the Mandate for Palestine was still in force. The Mandate for Palestine had to end before independence was declared by either party.
B) The Mandate for Palestine: expired midnight May 14th 1948 (Palestine time), in order that Palestine was completely free of the control of any outside entity, so that either party could, if they wished, declare independence, if they were indeed independent of the control of another entity.
However, by the 15th May 1948, Jewish forces were already in control of a lot of the territory slated for the new Arab State. Because of this outside control a declaration of independence over all the territories allotted for a new Arab State was impossible! In fact, Palestine has never been free of the control of another entity for over 2,000 years. There has never been an opportunity to miss.
” I’m often confronted with a quote from the Mandate stating the Jewish right to ‘close settlement’ of the land …… I can’t find a single document that lays out a clear counterargument to this right to close settlement.”
The Mandate for Palestine itself, Article 7 “The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.”
The Jewish right to ‘close settlement’ of the land applied only to Palestinian citizens whilst Palestine was under the Mandate for Palestine.
” If it were the case that 181 was legally binding, would it then follow that the Mandate for Palestine (and therefore article 6) was superseded?”
The mandate expired before the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel and its subsequent recognition as it asked to be recognized, superseding every agreement that came before it. Israel’s Declaration and its recognition ARE BINDING!
Palestinian citizens were not prohibited from settling in Palestine. Israeli citizens are prohibited from settling in occupied Palestinian territories.
The Hasbara is complete bullsh*te!
Comment by talknic — September 14, 2012 @ 3:00 am
Just my two cents: The UN had no authority to recommend the partition of Palestine in any way. The right of sovereignty of the Palestinian people can’t be taken away from them, the political sovereignty wasn’t handed over from the Turks to the British or the League of Nations and consequently wasn’t given to the UN either.
The Sub-Committee 2 to the Political Ad-Hoc Committee on Palestine was tasked with looking into the legal foundations, and the result was: No way for partition, let the ICJ decide on the implications of IL.
During the UN sessions preceding the partition proposal, Ben-Gurion himself admitted that Jews were in the possession of no more than 6 percent of the land of Palestine. According to the UN, the exact figure was some 5.66 percent. Even if land leased from the Government of Palestine to Jews were taken into consideration, the total Jewish ownership would have been something between 8 and 9 percent.
Israels Declaration of Independence was a violation of resolution 181 because
a) it was to be implemented by peaceful means and the ethnic cleansing of Palestine had started in December 1947, and
b) the text is clear: The Jewish and the Arab states should come into existence TWO MONTHS AFTER the last British soldier had left Palestine.
Moreover, Israel acknowledged the validity of resolutions 181 and 194 in the process of her admission to the UN.
Please, forgive my poor English.
Comment by No One — October 3, 2012 @ 7:51 am
Hi,
I agree that decisions on Palestine’s future should have been made through a referendum of the legal citizens of Palestine. This was of course the legal stance of the Arab States from the 1920’s. Contrary to the Israeli propaganda narrative, the Arab States objections had nothing to do with hating Jews. It was based on the LoN Covenant (1920) and later the UN Charter (1945) and the LoN Mandate while it lasted (1922 til May 14th 1948)
Never the less, UNGA had/has a right to make “recommendations”. They do not have the right to demand, especially of non-member entities and; they can only advise Members on how Members may or may not treat non-members and remind them of the Law and UN Charter, which are of course binding on all Members.
The vital point was that the Mandate for Palestine was about to end, leaving no territory under the control of a third party. Under such circumstances any entity could have declared Independence over territories they controlled. Israel was only declared within the borders of UNGA res 181. (confirmed by the Israeli Govt May 22nd 1948)
“Jews were in the possession of no more than 6 percent of the land of Palestine”\
The Hasbara propaganda conflates ‘real estate’ with ‘territory’ and would like people to think Jews bought the territory. However, they only owned ‘real estate’. ‘Real estate’ is not ‘territory’. Territory belongs to all the citizens of the territory whether they own ‘real estate’, lease/rent ‘real estate’ or are homeless and living under a bridge. The ‘territory’ of the State of Israel was completely gratis. Israel paid nothing.
“Israels Declaration of Independence was a violation of resolution 181 because
a) it was to be implemented by peaceful means and the ethnic cleansing of Palestine had started in December 1947, and
b) the text is clear: The Jewish and the Arab states should come into existence TWO MONTHS AFTER the last British soldier had left Palestine.”
a) ‘Israel’ can only be held responsible after Israel was declared. The violence prior to May 15th 1948 was a civil war. By Israel not withdrawing Jewish forces from non-Israeli territory immediately on declaring independence from Palestine, the civil war became a war waged by the State of Israel on a non-self-governing territory, what remained of Palestine.
b) The text:
This is a reference to the three entities, not to the proposed individual independent states. For each state (not including corpus separatum) see:
The argument that Israel should not exist because it violated the principals of UNGA res 181 is too late. It does exist, it is a UN Member and as a UN Member it is obliged to uphold the Law and the UN Charter. It has failed. It is a rogue state.
Comment by talknic — October 3, 2012 @ 1:03 pm