ShortLink http://wp.me/pDB7k-187
Dedicated to those Israeli propagandistas who, when asked to provide evidence of their claims, simply can’t … or when they try, they show just the opposite
 |
Take the Mandate for Palestine. The propagandist narrative goes like this. “Under the British Mandate Jews have a right to settle anywhere in Palestine” … ” the British Mandate still applies” However the Mandate for Palestine (the correct title), doesn’t say there should be a Jewish ‘state’. Article 7 Jewish immigrants could get “Palestinian” citizenship. Furthermore, the Israeli Government web page on the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, tells us the Mandate “expired” on the night of May 14th 1948 (ME time) On the May 15th 1948 the Israeli Government’s request for recognition stated:
A declaration of Independent Statehood as envisaged by UNGA res 181 which is enshrined in the Jewish People’s Council Declaration, could not have come into effect if any of that state’s territories were under the authority of another power. One must be ‘independent’ to declare independence. The British administration of Palestine had to end. |
However, by 00:01 May 15th 1948 and before 1 October 1948 Jewish forces were already occupying territory in what remained of Palestine, none of which has ever been legally annexed to Israel. Including Jerusalem.
64 years on Israel is still preventing an Independent Palestinian State
First, find out what isn't true... 
Palestine occupied before 1967.
1. A territory can be “occupied” by someone who has the right of occupation. This could be, for example, a military occupation but it is not a “belligerent occupation” which is an occupation within the meaning of the Hague Regulations 4 Hague Convention (1910). Article 43 assumes that the displaced occupant has a legitimate sovereignty over the area.
2. Rabbi Silver is not a lawyer and cannot give the United Nations General Assembly authority it does not have. To determine its authority one must read the charter. Several provisions of the Charter give authority to the UN General Assembly but only authority to recommend. If all parties are in agreement, they usually sign a treaty which is effective under International Law.
3. Before 1967 the boundaries of Israel’s sovereignty was the Green Line because it did not have legal dominion over the remainder of Palestine west of the Jordan. That is because it was illegally occupied by Jordan and Egypt occupying Judea, Samaria, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip. Under the trust it had to have the capability of exercising sovereignty. The 1933 Montevideo Convention codifies what is needed to meet that capability. It includes unified control over the people. Prior to 1967, Jordan had such control.
4. If Palestine was a state prior to 1967 it was under the suzerainty of the Ottoman Empire and therefore was not a sovereign state. It is universally agreed that Palestine was a territory under the sovereignty of Turkey for 400 years prior to the end of WWI. Palestine never was a nation ruled from a capital inside Palestine.
5. There were Jewish inhabitants of Palestine for the last 4,200 years. Sometimes there were fewer than others. At the end of WWI the Jews were two thirds the population in the area of Jerusalem, and one sixth the overall population which led to the need to create a trust to attain a Jewish state.
6. Israel had, in 1967, to restore the area over which it was the cestui que trust or beneficiary since 1920 which had been illegally occupied by Jordan since 1948 – land won in a war of aggression.
7. The Jewish People’s State is larger than Israel. It has only entrusted Israel with management of part of its territory.
8. A group of people calling itself a state does not empower the UN to redraw state boundaries. When the Ottoman Empire, in the treaty of Lausanne relinquished its rights in Palestine, the Allied Powers could have annexed the area but instead recognized the rights of the Jewish People by virtue of their historical connection to Palestine.
9. decision of the Allied Principoal War Powers to create a trust with the Jewish People as beneficiaries may have been based on the prohets and on Deuteronomy. By 1948 this had been decided 28 years earlier.
10. The UN General Assembly has no authority other than to recommend. Rabbi Silver cannot pronounce them as having greater authority that the UN Charter provides.
11. The Jewish People’s claim under International Law was not based on the prophets or on Deuteronomy, but on the San Remo Resolution and the Palestine Mandate. Now the Most people don’t understand that Palestine, or at least the alleged “Palestinian People” has no right to be sovereign even though as they read the UN charter it appears to say any “people” has the right to self-determination. They haven’t obeyed the scholar’s imperative “read on” – in this case, to where the Charter provides for “sovereign equality”. These are the legal code words guaranteeing the territorial integrity of sovereign states.
12. 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 by the US. This Mandate provided detail for the Balfour Declaration policy adopted by the Allies word-for-word at San Remo. It ultimately gave the Jews the political rights to all of Palestine west of the Jordan River — “from the River to the Sea”, as the Arabs put it, referring to their aspirations to rid the world of the Jewish state.
13.
14. People were persuaded as above because the UN said so in Resolution 3236 and the later 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.
15. 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? Most people reading it assumed that the UN General Assembly was like the Congress. The Mallisons did nothing to disabuse them of this belief. People assumed that when the UN General Assembly enacted a resolution, it became a part of international law. That is not so.
16. These UN General Assembly resolutions are only recommendations. If they are accepted by all parties to a dispute, the parties enter into a treaty and 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.
17.
18. He said:
19.
20. “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.
21. As the [United States] Secretary of State recently put it:
22. “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.”
23.
24. Schwebel went on to say there were some International Lawyers that tried to fit recurring statements in UN Resolutions into the category of long-standing custom or practice between or among states.
25.
26. The Mallison legal opinion assumed that the UN Partition Resolution was a part of International Law. The Resolution 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.
27.
28. 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.
29. Also, the Jews were not illegally in the Jerusalem area because the corpus separatum also died at birth along with Resolution 181.
30. 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 a sovereign state. It has only been applied to cases of decolonization.
31. 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.
32.
Comment by Wallace Edward Brand — August 26, 2015 @ 5:04 pm