then it’s a territory of Palestine…
ShortLink http://wp.me/PDB7k-Q
If you can disprove any of the items here with logic and citations of official documents from credible sources, I will gladly remove the offending item. Till then, feel free to put up, sans abuse and personal attacks…..enjoy!
link to this section
1st some Background Information
WHO OWNS TERRITORY: The deeds of Government/regime & private/corporate/institutional ownership of ‘real estate’ does not give those parties territorial or sovereign rights. The ‘real estate’ of Governments/regimes & private/corporate/institutional land ownership can change hands. It is not the ‘territory’ of states. E.g., Government Institutes in Japan own large tracts of land in Australia. It does not give them any sovereign right to it, they are not Australian citizens. Australia could nationalize that real estate and depending on there being a contract or treaty between Japan and Australia pay or not pay compensation.
The ‘territories’ of an entity, whether Sovereign, state or stateless, titled or un-titled, belong to all the entity’s citizens, regardless of their political persuasions or ‘real estate’ ownership deeds. This includes the homeless, non-voting, non-land owning, alcoholic bum who lives under a bridge. This is true of all entities. (this BTW also applies to RoR).
All immigrants into Palestine under the British Mandate, were required to become citizens of Palestine. Any person or organization who owned ‘real estate’ in Palestine and were not citizens of Palestine, were not a part of the entity of Palestine, they had no right to determine the fate of territory in Palestine.
Link to this section
There is no obligation for an entity to declare statehood or independent sovereignty, It would quite simply be against the very principle of independence. Nor is there any obligation to recognize states. There are numerous UN Member States who do not recognize each other, they are never the less legitimate states and under Customary International Law and the UN Charter, all must show “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;” as reflected in numerous UNSC Resolutions.
When the majority of the International Community of states do recognize an entity as a Sovereignty or State, the objections of the parties who do not recognize the entity, are over ridden. Once a majority have ratified a convention, it passes into Customary International Law. Likewise with recognition. Once recognized by a majority, Sovereign Independence becomes irrevocable.
Despite the Arab States objections, Israel was recognized as a Sovereign State “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947 “, and was accepted into the UN, before Israel tried to illegally claim( on Aug 31st 1949 ) any territory “…outside of Israel”
A Sovereign State controls all it’s territories and must have delineated borders in order to indicate exactly what it controls. It can do whatever it likes within it’s borders. It cannot acquire territory through unilateral annexation. Under Customary International Law since at least the mid 1800’s is by legal annexation (see the US annexation of Texas). Legal annexation requires a referendum of the citizens in the territory to be annexed. A Sovereign State acting outside the extent of it’s Sovereign borders, may only do so in accordance with International Law, the Laws of War, Humanitarian Law, (all mandatory, without exception) and if it is a UN Member, according to the UN Charter and any Conventions it has ratified (Contracting Power) and/or anything it has committed itself to uphold. E.g., Israel obliged itself to the principles of the UN Charter before it became a UN Member state. (see the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel)
A State on the other hand, might not control all of it’s territories. It’s territories might/may be under the control or administration or protected by another party by agreement or treaty. It cannot acquire territory through unilateral annexation. Legal annexation is by agreement or treaty with the other entity. A state acting outside the extent of it’s borders, may only do so in accordance with International Law, the Laws of War, Humanitarian Law, (all mandatory, without exception) and if it is a UN Member, according to the UN Charter and any Conventions it has ratified (Contracting Power) and/or anything it has committed itself to uphold.
An Entity might/may exist independently or under the control or administration of another party or group of parties. This might/may be under agreement or occupation. Under an agreement, it becomes a protectorate or is under the UN Charter for Trustees. An entity under occupation is protected by the UN Charter Chapter XI. Any entity may under take to adhere to International Law, the Laws of War, Humanitarian Law and/or the principles of the UN Charter.
In respect to the Geneva Conventions, if an entity is a protectorate or under a trusteeship or being represented (e.g., the Arab States represented Palestine), the protector or trustee/s are the High Contracting Power under which the Geneva Conventions apply. Prior to the Geneva Conventions coming into force, they were still bound by Customary International Law, the Laws of War and where applicable, the UN Charter.
Despite some Palestinians not having deeds for ‘real estate’ under the British Mandate over Palestine, the territory was theirs as much as it was anyone else living in it. Despite there being Jewish ‘real estate’ ownership in Palestine under the British Mandate over Palestine, the Jewish private, corporate and institutional ‘real estate’ ownership did not confer Sovereignty over territory.
The extent of the Sovereign territory of the Jewish state, was given to the Jewish people of the world, completely gratis, without the consultation of the local population of the territory of British Mandate Palestine. From the moment Israel Declared Sovereignty, the private, corporate and institutional owned ‘real estate’ outside of Israel’s Sovereign borders was by default not a part of Israel.
Israel’s Sovereignty over the extent of it’s Declared boundaries/frontiers was given de jure recognition I.e., recognition of the State of Israel. The provisional Government was given de facto recognition because it was only a provisional government. The US granted Israel’s first elected Government de jure recognition on the 31st Jan 1949.
link to this section
Was the original intention of the British for a Jewish state in Palestine? The answer is NO!
It is interesting to note he says “the ‘independent nation’ of Palestine“, which indicates the intention of the Balfour declaration was not to have a separate Jewish ‘state’, but as Article 7 of the Mandate for Palestine says, a homeland for Jewish folk IN Palestine, the peoples to be Palestinian citizens, under Palestinian Law. Where of course, under those circumstances, as citizens of Palestine, Jewish folk would have had the right to live anywhere in Palestine.
link to this section
There is no mention of a Jewish State in the League of Nations Mandate over Palestine (in particular see Article 7)
Article 2 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 development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.
Article 4 An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country.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.
link to this section
This is re-iterated in the British White Paper (1922)
Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty’s Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change. “
link to this section
Re-iterated again in the British White Paper (1939)
Israel exists. So it’s all water under the bridge. People should get over it? Facts on the ground have changed the reality?
Well, no. Because A) Peace agreements are based on Internationally recognized borders of the parties, even if only one has them. B) It shows, if the Palestinians agree to the fabled ‘67 borders, (which in fact are only armistice lines between Israel and the other parties who signed the armistice), that contrary to the Israeli propaganda, it will be the Palestinians who are being generous.
Q: Why should decent folk tolerate lies, propaganda and fallacies about the past being purposefully promoted and used TODAY, on Israel’s behalf TODAY, in order to justify and support it’s continued and illegal expansionist policies, TODAY.
link to this section
As for G_/od having promised it and the oft claimed ‘right to live anywhere in Palestine’ in this day and age. Sorry G-/od, the Peoples Council sold you out when Israel accepted and Declared Sovereignty over the borders outlined in UNGA resolution 181 and was recognized as such by the majority of the International Community of states. Not a binding resolution, true. However, a Declaration of Sovereignty IS binding!
Q1: Where is the deed, signed by G-od?
Q2: If Israel’s borders are not defined, how can it be a sovereignty?
Non-partisan repository for Documents on the Palestine / Israel issue
link to this section
RECOGNITION: A Sovereign or non-sovereign state is considered ‘recognized’ when the majority of the International Community of States grants recognition. Recognition of statehood is not mandatory. ” ..in the view of the United States, International Law does not require a state to recognize another state; it is a matter for the judgment of each state whether an entity merits recognition as a state. In reaching this judgment, the United States has traditionally looked for the establishment of certain facts. The United States has also taken into account whether the entity in question has attracted the recognition of the International community of states.”
There are different forms of recognition within the UN and the International Community. Although it is not obligatory for Member states to grant recognition, all states must acknowledge boundaries and acknowledge the right to live in peace within those boundaries. This is reflected in the UNSC resolutions on conflicts between the Arab states and Israel. (UNSC res 242) “….acknowledgment 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;”
Recognition of Israel:
USA 15 May 1948 “… as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947…”
Russia 17 May 1948
Letter from Mr. Molotov stated: “Confirming receipt of your telegram of May 16, in which you inform the Government of the USSR of the proclamation, on the basis of the resolution of the United Nations Assembly of November 29, 1947, of the creation in Palestine of the independent State of Israel and make re-quest for the recognition of the State of Israel and its provisional government by the USSR. I inform yon in this letter that the Govern-ment of the USSR has decided to recognize officially the Stale of Israel and its Provisional Government.”
British 27 April 1950 The British Foreign Office issued a statement on May 17 to the effect that Great Britain would not recognize Israel for the time being because it had not fulfilled the “basic criteria” of an independent state. The British waited until a political party was elected to Govern the State of Israel, then granted de jure recognition, with conditions. The territories Israel had acquired by war, outside of it’s declared Sovereign Boundaries, were considered to be ‘occupied’. I.e., NOT Israeli Sovereign territory.
“His Majesty’s Government have also decided to accord de jure recognition to the State of Israel, subject to explanations on two points corresponding to those described above in regard to the case of Jordan. These points are as follows. First, that His Majesty’s Government are unable to recognise the sovereignty of Israel over that part of Jerusalem which she occupies, though, pending a final determination of the status of the area, they recognise that Israel exercises de facto authority in it. Secondly, that His Majesty’s Government cannot regard the present boundaries between Israel, and Egypt, Jordan, Syria and the Lebanon as constituting the definitive frontiers of Israel, as these boundaries were laid down in the Armistice Agreements concluded severally between Israel and each of these States, and are subject to any modifications which may be agreed upon under the terms of those Agreements, or of any final settlements which may replace them.” Thus far nothing has replaced them.
Australia 28 January 1949 “… on the basis of the resolution of the United Nations Assembly of November 29, 1947…”
New Zealand 29 January 1949 “It is the understanding of the New Zealand Government that the settlement of boundaries and other outstanding questions will be effected in accordance with the resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations of 11 December 1948.”
More on USNC Res 242 It does not say ‘negotiate’, it says ‘acknowledgement of’
link to this section
SOVEREIGN STATES: In order to become a Sovereign State, an entity must define and have full control over the territories it wishes to declare sovereignty over. The requirement to define is so that the International Community of States knows exactly what they are claiming as their own, in order to recognize them as a Sovereignty.
Their Declaration of Sovereignty must then be recognized by the majority of the International Community of States. Recognition by the majority of the International Community of States over rides those states objecting.
Sovereign states can only acquire further territory by legal annexation. Ie., by agreement or treaty. Unilateral annexation is not permitted, nor is territory acquired by war or claiming armistice lines as borders when they weren’t borders before the armistice.
Q: – If it is illegal to acquire territory by war and if armistice lines were not borders before the armistice and if the Sovereign state of Israel has never legally annexed any territory, can you please produce a map of Israel’s actual Sovereign territory, that includes Ashkelon, Beer Sheeba, Acre, and all the territories acquired by war by 1949?
link to this section
NON-SOVEREIGN STATES: An entity may declared statehood without having full control over all their territories. They can, at a later date, declare sovereignty. Meanwhile, their territories still belong to their people and cannot be acquired by another entity by war/force. Only through mutual agreement, Legal Annexation. Likewise protectorates are through mutual agreement. Non-sovereign states can only acquire further territory by legal annexation.
link to this section
ENTITIES: Entities whose territories are usually identified by, but outside of, the borders of adjacent Sovereign and Non-Sovereign States. There is no obligation for entities to declare statehood. Never the less, their territories still belong to their people and cannot be acquired by another entity by war/force. Only through mutual agreement, Legal Annexation. Likewise protectorates are through mutual agreement.
————
link to this section
DECLARING STATEHOOD: A declaration of statehood is not made on behalf of an entity by a Government or a political party. Political parties & regimes change. It is made by a politically neutral body which only exists for the time it takes to Declare statehood and institute a political system in the new state. As such, they might have a mandate. They do not have a charter.
For example, the Fatah and Hamas Charters are irrelevant to what kind of state the Palestinians might choose to have. Hamas & Fatah are both political parties. Neither can declare statehood.
A good example of the process is the People’s Council who declared the Jewish State on 14th May 1948
An entity may declare statehood under occupation, it CANNOT declare sovereignty under occupation. The British had to end the Mandate over Palestine in order to give either party the opportunity to declare sovereignty. Likewise Indonesia was required to withdraw in order for East Timor to declare sovereignty.
Israel would be legally be required to relinquish ALL control over ALL the territories not within it’s actual sovereignty, in order for the Palestinians to declare themselves a Sovereign State. This is of huge concern because Israel has not legally annexed any of the territory it has illegally acquired by war since it’s own Declaration of Sovereignty in 1948. See HERE.
link to this section
ISRAEL’S DECLARATION OF SOVEREIGNTY: Supersedes all prior promises, declarations, resolutions. On the 14th May 1948, Israel became a Sovereign State within the borders proposed by UNGA Res 181. They were accepted by the Peoples Council, in order that the new Jewish State be recognized as a Sovereign State. Resolution 181 is enshrined in the Declaration of a Jewish State. Letter From the Agent of the Provisional Government of Israel to the President of the United States, May 15, 1948 “MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. The Act of Independence will become effective at one minute after six o’clock on the evening of 14 May 1948, Washington time.”
Israel has never legally annexed ANY territory outside of it’s Sovereign territory.
You will often encounter the argument that Israel has no borders because the Arab states did not recognize it. However, Israel was recognized by the majority of the International Community of states (democracy at work). Furthermore the existing Arab states were already recognized BEFORE Israel declared in 1948. The borders of the Arab States are the same now, as they were adjoining the British mandate over Palestine in 1948 and Israel’s are the same as they were under declaration.
This is reflected for example in the Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949 where it confirms that Lebanon not only bordered Israel, but Lebanon also bordered PALESTINE.
link to this section
It is also shown in the Israel/Egypt Peace Treaty.
Q: Sovereign states must have defined territory in order to be recognized as sovereign states. As Israel is a Sovereign state and it has never legally annexed any of the territories it has acquired by war, what are it’s actual sovereign borders?
… HOME …
First, find out what isn't true... 
I read parts “The censored Diaries of Joseph Nahmani- and what happened after 1947-1949”. Published by Benny Morris, he was defiled
for it, the Diaries disappeared under locked vaults, Morris reformed. Nahmani real name was Joseph Weitz (?) a Haganah veteran charged with bying land from Palestinians, in Judea Samaria, in his diaries he witness atrocities says; “make me feel verry bad”.
His name totally disappeared.
Today this came out in Haaretz “Benny Morris reveals more about the Israeli conspiracy to cover-up the Nakba”
https://mondoweiss.net/2019/07/reveals-israeli-conspiracy/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=reveals-israeli-conspiracy&utm_source=Mondoweiss+List&utm_campaign=1dfb57e59d-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_
Comment by Rohana — July 13, 2019 @ 3:46 pm
The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA, GA, or French: Assemblée Générale “AG”) is one of the six principal organs of the United Nations and the only one in which all member nations have equal representation. Its powers are to oversee the budget of the United Nations, appoint the non-permanent members to the Security Council, receive reports from other parts of the United Nations AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE FORM OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTIONS. [from Wikipedia, my emphasis] Read the text of those sections of the the Charter authorizing the action that may be taken by the General Assembly and you will come to the same conclusion – that it may only recommend, with the exceptions listed.
Comment by Wallace Brand — December 15, 2016 @ 2:22 am
The UN Charter is binding on all members, International Law is binding on all members, ratified conventions are binding on all ratifying states until a majority of states have ratified said conventions where upon they pass into Customary International Law, binding on all states. The laws, UN Charter and Conventions contained in ANY UN resolution are binding.
Comment by talknic — December 21, 2016 @ 4:02 am
What you suggest is that the UN acts as a legislature. A General Assembly resolution does not have any effect on International Law unless the parties affected by its recommendations agree to observe them. Then they write them up in a treaty or convention which becomes a part of international law. All you have to do is read the Charter provisions that give the General Assembly authority to do things and you will see that its authority is limited to the budget and organization of the secretariat. It’s only other authority is to recommend. As stated by the US Secretary of State: —from many points of view the one-state, one-vote procedure for expressing the sense of the General Assembly is unsatisfactory, the incorporation of this principle in the Charter was balanced by giving the Assembly only recommendatory powers.
Comment by Wallace Edward Brand — January 23, 2017 @ 3:06 am
“What you suggest is that the UN acts as a legislature. “ Save your stupid Ziopuke bullsh*t and comment on what I actually wrote. The UN Charter and International Law are binding, no matter what resolution they’re reaffirmed or emphasized in
Comment by talknic — January 29, 2017 @ 11:39 pm
Talknic also believes that the UN decides what the boundaries of a country are. That is what the respected authority on International Law named Julius Stone referred to as “An Assault on the Law of Nations”. All the UN decides is whether it, the UN, should recognize a group as a state and whether it should approve or disapprove its membership in the United Nations. The UN decisions on whether or not a people is a nation-state has no relevance under international law. What is decisive is whether the people meet the requirements codified now in the 1933 Montevideo Convention and have been recognized by other states. The Jewish People’s statehood was tacitly recognized in 1922 when 52 states including the US approved and confirmed the Mandate for Palestine. The PA has never met the requirements of International Law for Statehood. It has no permanent people. It keeps shifting its designation as to who they are. Its definition initially excluded the Arabs in the West Bank, then it included them, and then it said it was going to exclude those within the Green Line but has never amended its Charter. In any event, it doesn’t meet the requirement of unified control over all the people. They are under the control in part by the PLO and in part by Hamas.
Comment by salubrius — November 29, 2016 @ 5:16 am
“Talknic also believes that the UN decides what the boundaries of a country are”
Quote me …. thx… I’ll wait
“What is decisive is whether the people meet the requirements codified now in the 1933 Montevideo Convention
“
OK … they must have a defined territory!
“The Jewish People’s statehood was tacitly recognized in 1922 when 52 states including the US approved and confirmed the Mandate for Palestine.”
OK … Article 7 tells us it was the Nation state of Palestine (nationality law was adopted in 1925) where Jews could immigrate to Palestine and gain Palestinian citizenship in the Nation State of Palestine
” The PA has never met the requirements of International Law for Statehood.”
Strange, the State of Palestine has been recognized by the majority of Nation States and have observer state status at the UN.
“It has no permanent people. It keeps shifting its designation as to who they are. Its definition initially excluded the Arabs in the West Bank, then it included them, and then it said it was going to exclude those within the Green Line but has never amended its Charter. In any event, it doesn’t meet the requirement of unified control over all the people. They are under the control in part by the PLO and in part by Hamas. … and Israeli occupation
Never the less the State of Palestine has been recognized by the majority of Nation States and have observer state status at the UN.
Comment by talknic — December 4, 2016 @ 2:42 pm
The acquisition of territory is an aggressive war will not confer sovereignty on the aggressor even if the ceding or relinquishing party agrees. That is not true of a state holding territory after a defensive war. The Jews offered to leave Jordan out of the 67 war if it stopped shelling the Israelis. Abdullah declined. The offer was made through a high official of the UN.
Comment by salubrius — November 29, 2016 @ 4:20 am
“The acquisition of territory is an aggressive war will not confer sovereignty on the aggressor”
Correct Montevideo Convention ARTICLE 11
The contracting states definitely establish as the rule of their conduct the precise obligation not to recognize territorial acquisitions or special advantages which have been obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in ANY other effective coercive measure. The territory of a state is inviolable and may not be the object of military occupation nor of other measures of force imposed by another state directly or indirectly or for any motive whatever even temporarily.”
Jewish forces were already in non-Israeli territories at the moment Israel’s territorial extent was made clear in its plea for recognition. What was a civil war before Israel’s declaration, became a war waged by a Israel against and in what remained of Palestine.
” That is not true of a state holding territory after a defensive war.”
OK … cite the law … I’ll wait
Meanwhile the Montevideo Convention tells us “or in ANY other effective coercive measure
Comment by talknic — December 4, 2016 @ 3:00 pm
Talknic, here is a little background for you:
http://www.bjpa.org/Publications/downloadFile.cfm?FileID=22125
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/19588
Comment by Wallace Edward Brand — January 21, 2017 @ 10:01 pm
Your article in sraelnationalnews is full of crappolla. Best you get the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel changed. Why is it that people like you need to LIE?
in the bjpa.org/Publications/downloadFile.cfm?FileID=22125 CH. WEIZMANN forgot to mention Article 7 of the LoN Mandate for Palestine
Israel’s borders were proclaimed by Israel and recognized per UNGA res 181 http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf
Comment by talknic — January 29, 2017 @ 11:52 pm
The author’s conclusion is wrong. See SSRN.com/abstract=2679399
Comment by salubrius — February 14, 2016 @ 9:00 pm
Save your inane drivel pal. Israel proclaimed its borders in its plea for recognition. That’s how Israel has been recognized. It’s how Israel was admitted to the UN. The acquisition of territory by war has been illegal since the adoption of the UN Charter. Israel is now in breach of numerous UNSC resolutions reaffirming and emphasizing binding International Law and the UN Charter and relevant conventions
Comment by talknic — February 20, 2016 @ 12:30 pm
No thats not how “israel” was admitted to the UN. It was admitted on 2 conditions ,viz the right of return of Palestinian refugees & a constitution guaranteeing the rights of the native gentile population, which “israel” agreed to but have never adhered to so should be expelled
Comment by Blake — March 2, 2016 @ 11:14 pm
Jewish statehood was a two part process. That is because in 1917 and in 1922 the Jews were only one sixth of the population. Then in order to create a Jewish state, the Allies first had to promote Jewish immigration until the Jews had a population majority. That is why they placed the collective political rights to self-determination in trust until the Jews had a majority population and the capability of exercising sovereignty. Here is how the US characterized the situation in a January 21, 1919 report: “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 recognise Palestine as a Jewish state as soon as it is a Jewish state in fact.” See 1. David Hunter Miller, My Diary at the Conference ofParis, Vol. iv, pp. 263-264. Full text.Scroll down to DOCUMENT 246 263 ♦26.PALESTINE. *78
2. J.C. Hurewitz (ed.), The Middle East and NorthAfrica in World Politics: A Documentary Record, Vol.2, British-French Supremacy, 1914-1945 (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1979), p. 103.
3. http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~samuel/americandraft.html is an excerpt from the full US recommendation brought to the Paris Peace talks. See also, the memorandum of the British Foreign Office of December 19, 1917 explaining the Balfour Declaration published a month earlier.
It was recognized that it would take many years to grow the Jewish population to a majority. That is why Palestine citizenship (or British citizenship) was provided for in a Jewish National Homeland until the Jewish statehood vested. The British were “entrusted” with the administration — sovereignty was not ceded to them. Who was to get statehood after the end of the trust — the Jewish People when it was practical for them to set up a Jewish government and to administer it. Also,, the British did not want to stir up the Arabs during the war. After the WWI an Arab delegation to London was told that there would not be any self government in Palestine until the Jews had a majority population.
Comment by Wallace Edward Brand — March 12, 2016 @ 2:48 am
“Jewish statehood was a two part process. That is because in 1917 and in 1922 the Jews were only one sixth of the population. Then in order to create a Jewish state, the Allies first had to promote Jewish immigration until the Jews had a population majority. That is why they placed the collective political rights to self-determination in trust until the Jews had a majority population and the capability of exercising sovereignty”
Whatever Ziodrivel you need to spout pal
League of Nations Mandate FOR PALESTINE (1922) 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.
Furthermore the Israeli Government proclaimed Israel’s borders in order to be recognized, rendering whatever promises were made, real or Zioimagined, prior to 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) of historical interest only
No independent state has ever recognized any further territories as Israeli
Answer me this … Why are you so stupid?
Comment by talknic — March 12, 2016 @ 10:04 pm
Some 51 League of Nations member states and the US confirmed and approved the Mandate for Palestine. These approvals, including the signatures of Presidents Harding and Cleveland were tacit recognition of the Jewish State of Palestine. See 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, Article 7, that shows that tacit recognition is sufficient to establish statehood. Statehood was authorized by these 52 states in 1922 at a later time when the national rights vested.. Here and below I have set forth credible documents establishing this including 1. Samuels, Future of Palestine, 2. Balfour Declaration, 3. San Remo Resolution, 4. League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, 5. British Foreign Office Memo of December 19, 1917 further explaining the Balfour Declaration, 6. American Commission to Negotiate the Peace, Outline of Tentative Report and Recommendations of the Intelligence Section of the American Delegation to the Peace Conference, in accordance with instructions, for the President and the Plenipotentiaries, January 21, 1919*
7. Sacher, A Jewish Palestine, the Jewish Case for a British trusteeship.
8.. Weizmann, MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED TO THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION , SAN FRANCISCO , CALIFORNIA , BY THE JEWISH AGENCY FOR PALESTINE APRIL, 1945.
These are all credible documents. You either haven’t read them or don’t understand them because you have no legal training. There are three or four legal issues that almost no one else has addressed. These are a. Evidence of the intent of settlors of a trust are the lodestar of its interpretation. b. The usual elements of a trust are:
• Intent to create a trust;
• A specific trust “res” (trust property);
• Designation of the parties (settlor, trustee and beneficiary); and.
• A valid trust purpose.
The intent to create a trust is usually manifested by a writing. Here, that writing was the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. Eugene Rostow also views the Mandate for Palestine as a trust as did another lawyer in 1920 and an International Court has viewed the Mandate for Namibia in the same light.
c. Article 7 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention of the rights and duties of states that codifies the requirements of statehood states the elements of a tacit recognition of a state.
d. A trust is normally self-executing.
Here the trust res was the collective political rights to self-determination and it vested partly in 1948 and partly in 1967.
Weizmann’s memo of April, 1945 shows what he thought was the roots of Jewish Statehood. The elements of the plan were proposed by Harry Sacher who wrote the first draft of the Balfour Declaration and a book in 1919 that outlined a BritishTrust as the Jews best case for reviving a Jewish State.
I have made a case based on credible documents and you have not, as promised, removed the misleading materials and conclusions commencing this paper. You haven’t read these documents and if you have no legal training you won’t understand them if and when you do.
Comment by salubrius — November 29, 2016 @ 2:56 am
Why all the waffle? UN GA Resolutions go to the Security Council to be ratified into law. It was referred to the SC where it died!
The Zionist ‘state’ of terrorist armed robbery is NOT legitimate & therefore CANNOT be de-legitimized. The UN Security Council (where UN resolutions are ratified into law) did NOT accept the non binding UN General Assembly Res 181 Partition Plan of 1947. The Palestinians have a right to 94% of the land of Palestine. Zionist Jews owned 6% of the land in 1948.
http://www.alanhart.net/israel-and-the-de-legitimization-oxymoron/
Comment by Blake — November 29, 2016 @ 5:13 am
“Some 51 League of Nations member states and the US confirmed and approved the Mandate for Palestine. These approvals, including the signatures of Presidents Harding and Cleveland were tacit recognition of the Jewish State of Palestine.
Bullshit. Article 7 of the Mandate tells us Jewish folk would be able get Palestinian citizenship. The Palestine Nationality Law was adopted in 1925 per Article 7
1948 – As of the moment Israel stated its frontiers in order to be recognized all your waffle became of historical interest only. It’s irrelevant to the fact that Israel proclaimed itself and its territorial extent in its plea for recognition and THAT’S HOW IT WAS RECOGNIZED and ADMITTED TO THE UN!
Nothing outside of its self proclaimed territories has ever been legally annexed to Israel by any agreement with the Palestinians. It must be by agreement because the acquisition of territory by war ANY coercive measure has been illegal since at least 1932 – The Montevideo Convention on the rights and duties of states Article 11
Comment by talknic — December 4, 2016 @ 2:04 pm
The provision for “Palestinian citizenship” was for citizenship in the Mandate until such time as the Jews met the conditions of the trust for statehood. You can’t seem to get it into your head that the process was a TWO STEP process. Until the second step there could not be citizenship in a Jewish state because the Jews did not have a population majority where they were to rule nor the capability to exercise sovereignty. The second step occurred partly in 1948 and partly in 1967. Until 1948 the Jews did NOT have a state that could grant citizenship. In 1948 they could grant citizenship because they had a majority population within what became the Green Line. Before 1967 when they could exercise unified control over Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem, they only had a beneficial interest in the collective rights to political self-determination — they did not have legal domain over that collective right. After 1967 they did have unified control over those areas and had the collective right to assert sovereignty there. The non-jewish individual political rights were preserved in the savings clause by saving civil rights. Individual political rights are included among the civil rights.
Why was there a two step process? Because a minority Jewish Population exercising sovereignty would not be a Democracy. Because a minority Jewish population could not have the capability to exercise sovereignty. Look what happened in Syria when the French permitted the Alawites, a 2% population in Syria to try to exercise sovereignty. Civil war and war with an external ISIS. Some half million people are now dead as a result. The Allied Principal War Powers wisely designed the transition to self government to avoid that problem by delaying Jewish rule until the two conditions referred to were met.
Comment by Wallace Edward Brand — January 21, 2017 @ 3:44 am
Wallace Edward Brand is allowed these posts so readers can see how insane he is
“The provision for “Palestinian citizenship” was for citizenship in the Mandate until such time as the Jews met the conditions of the trust for statehood.”
Sources please. >I’ll wait ….
The rest of your post is also unsubstantiated drivel Wallace.
Comment by talknic — February 3, 2017 @ 3:36 am
and wait ….
and wait ….
Comment by talknic — February 18, 2017 @ 2:23 am
“Israel” doesnt have delineated borders.
And this is international law as I understand it:
The entire enterprise of a Jewish state in Palestine is built upon an express rejection of international law. The only legitimate grounds for political sovereignty of an indigenous people are the laws of ius soli or ius sanguineas recognized in international law, which translates into a right of sovereignty based upon habitation in a particular territory or being a descendent of someone in a particular territory. The third option granting a right to sovereignty would be the discovery of a terra nullius that is an uninhabited territory. Palestine was never a terra nullius, and its inhabitants were entitled to a sovereign state in Palestine as part of Greater Syria, if they so chose, according to the ius soli following the demise of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I in 1917 and 1918. If their children were out of the country at the time of its establishment at a particular time, then they would be granted citizenship on the grounds of the ius sanguine if they had not been born in Palestine or Greater Syria.
European Jewry did not fulfil either of these qualifications in 1917, when the Balfour Declaration, a document prepared by international Jewish leadership, and addressed by Lord Arthur Balfour, the United Kingdom’s Foreign secretary at the time, to Lord Walter Rothschild, a scion of the leading Jewish banking family in the world, resident in England, was written supporting a Jewish homeland [sic] in Palestine.
The carving up of historical Palestine to excise the bulk of its territory for an imported unequivocally foreign population at the expense of the indigenous society was recognized not to be a politically legitimate action. Its destructive consequences should have been obvious a priori, and history has proved such expectation accurate. Such an excision has harmed the indigenous population in every and all aspects of its life: political, economic, social, educational, cultural, religious, historical and geographical. The destruction of Palestine, the expulsion of the overwhelming majority of its population and the deliberate and continuing genocidal attacks on the remaining population living under Jewish conquest, only highlights the illegitimacy of the Jewish presence and its continuing aggression against the Palestinians.
Comment by Blake — October 25, 2015 @ 12:21 pm
The Israeli Government proclaimed Israel’s borders in the 15th May 1948 plea for recognition to the International Community of Nations. Israel was recognized by that plea. It exists by virtue of majority recognition, like it or not.
The argument today is with the State of Israel, it’s Government’s own words clearly illustrate their own lies and deceit
Comment by talknic — October 26, 2015 @ 4:14 am
I am not talking about “Israel” whose government was delegate some authority over the Jewish People’s state. I am talking about the Jewish People’s State that was authorized by the Allied Principal War Powers in 1920. The Allies had won the right to it in a defensive war. After Turkey agreed to reduce its borders leaving much territory outside them, the Alllies recognized the Arab inhabitants as sovereign over 99% of the territory, and 1% Palestine had its collective political rights placed in trust, not to vest until the Jews attained a population majority and the capability of exercising sovereignty. The Jews met these standards initially within the Armistice line established when they were attacked by external aggressors. Instead of protecting them, the trustee, Perfidious Albion, helped Jordan invade the territory and then purported to recognize Jordanian sovereignty. It is difficult to explain all this to someone who apparently has no legal training.
It is well recognized that territory won in a defensive war, after the former sovereign relinquishes its political rights to those who won it as the Allies had. Palestine was not terra nullius. The Ottoman Empire had exercised undisputed sovereignty over it for 400 years
Comment by salubrius — March 2, 2016 @ 11:04 pm
The Palestine Mandate set the borders as the Palestine territory west of the Jordan River. See Article 25.
Comment by salubrius — March 2, 2016 @ 11:06 pm
Your mind is so obtuse. I am well aware of article 25 but that just proves that by 1946 all countries surrounding Palestine had gained their independence. That, in itself, defined PALESTINE, not “israel.”
Brits called their admin of that territory Mandate for Palestine in which article 25 makes it clear no other territories will be added to it, including Transjordan defining PALESTINE’S borders.
Comment by Blake — March 2, 2016 @ 11:29 pm
I never said Palestine was a terra nullius I said “israel” had no right to self declare itself on an inch of Palestinian soil at the expense of the native inhabitants
Comment by Blake — March 2, 2016 @ 11:26 pm
” I am talking about the Jewish People’s State that was authorized by the Allied Principal War Powers in 1920″
Quote them verbatim pal … LOL you know you can’t. You’re posting nonsense
“The Allies had won the right to it in a defensive war”
Turkey attacked France and Great Britain? WOW!!! On what date? You sure know how to bullsh*t! BTW Neither the British or France claimed the territories as their own.
“After Turkey agreed to reduce its borders leaving much territory outside them, the Alllies recognized the Arab inhabitants as sovereign over 99% of the territory, and 1% Palestine had its collective political rights placed in trust, not to vest until the Jews attained a population majority and the capability of exercising sovereignty.”
Cite the documents please …. Thx I’ll wait https://talknic.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/waiting_for_the_israeli_propagandist.gif
Meanwhile read the League of Nations Mandate for PALESTINE article 7 then shut the f*ck up because you’re making an absolute fool of yourself.
“The Jews met these standards initially within the Armistice line established when they were attacked by external aggressors”
No Arab state invaded any Israeli territory. Jewish forces under Plan Dalet were already outside of the territory proclaimed by the Israeli Government in its plea for recognition on the day Israel’s borders were proclaimed effective and recognized by the US. The other Regional Powers had a right to expel foreign forces from what remained of Palestine after Israel made its borders clear. Israel’s wars have ALL been in territories … “outside the State of Israel” “.
“Instead of protecting them, the trustee, Perfidious Albion, helped Jordan invade the territory and then purported to recognize Jordanian sovereignty”
The West Bank as it is now known, was legally annexed at the request of the Palestinians Jordan’s annexation was as a trustee only by demand of he other Arab States (Session: 12-II Date: May 1950). Unlike Israel’s illegal unilateral annexation of East Jerusalem, condemned by NINE UNSC resolutions reminding Israel of its legal obligations under the binding laws those resolutions re-affirm and emphasize 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968, 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969, 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, 446 (1979) of 22 March 1979, 452 (1979) 20 July 1979, 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, 476 June 30 1980 and 478 August 20 1980
there are no UNSC resolutions condemning the bilateral (legal) annexation of the West Bank by Jordan.
BTW The West Bank was sovereign to Jordan and by 1967 Jordan was a UN Member State and a High Contracting Power, which is why the UNSC tells us GC IV applies.
“It is difficult to explain all this to someone who apparently has no legal training”
Save it idiot you have nothing bu Ziodrivel
“It is well recognized that territory won in a defensive war, after the former sovereign relinquishes its political rights to those who won it as the Allies had”
Except neither France or Britain claimed the territories for themselves. They had a Mandate to foster independent states one being PALESTINE, which adopted Nationality Law per the LoN Mandate for Palestine Article 7. It was a Nation State from 1945
Comment by talknic — March 11, 2016 @ 3:32 am
Turkey agreed to reduce its borders twice, first in the Treaty of Sevres that wasn’t ratified, and second in the Treaty of Lausanne that was. Had Britain and France been the aggressors, they would not have been recognized as entitled to dispose of the territory. The boundaries of Palestine were established by a Commission provided for by agreement of the Allied War Powers. I believe its report was issued on December 23, 1920. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulet–Newcombe_Agreement http://www.worldlibrary.org/…/franco-british_boundary_agreement_(1920)
Comment by salubrius — November 29, 2016 @ 4:13 am
So what? It’s irrelevant to Israel’s self proclaimed frontiers effective at 00:01 May 15th 148 (ME time) and Israel’s illegal activities outside of its self proclaimed frontiers of 00:01 May 15th 1948. NOTHING outside of those borders has ever been legally annexed to Israel by agreement with the Palestinians
Comment by talknic — December 4, 2016 @ 2:21 pm
The Jews had a beneficial interest in the collective right of political self-determination and the right of immediate settlement in the trust agreement, i.e. the Mandate for Palestine. See Article 6. The San Remo Resolution reflects the agreement of the Allies to implement the policy that the British had proclaimed (The Balfour Declaration) as The Mandate for Palestine. The Resolution is very short. You will find the the trusts for Syria and Iraq are subject to all of Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant. Please note that the trust for Palestine is not subject to the 4th paragraph of Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenent. Both documents, the San Remo Resolution and the trust agreement Mandate for Palestine can easily be found on the internet. The Mandate for Palestine is a writing that is the manifestation of the intent to create a trust which is also shown in the Resolution and in the first sentence of the Mandate trust agreement.
The Mandate for Palestine authorized the British trustees to issue passports because the territory of Palestine was in the first phase of the transition to a Jewish state. The right to statehood had not yet vested as the Jews did not meet the trust conditions between 1920 and 1948.
For the 400 years preceding, the Palestinian Arabs were not a nation-state but merely Arab people residing in the provinces of that sovereign empire. The were not even a vassal or tributary state. There was no national self government of the Arabs. In 1920 the Allies recognized the collective political rights of the Jewish People but were wise enough to know that it would not be practical to have a Jewish state until the Jews imported other jews to attain a majority where they were to rule. Only then could they have a democratic state. Only then could they have a stable state which could command the obedience of the Arab segment. Only then could they protect their state from external Arabs.
Look what happened to Syria when the French recognized the 2% Alawites as sovereign in Syria. Some 50,000 were killed by Hafez Assad and another 450,000 by Bashir Assad in civil warfare.
Comment by Wallace Edward Brand — January 19, 2017 @ 5:54 am
Repeat : So what? It’s irrelevant to Israel’s self proclaimed frontiers effective at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) and Israel’s illegal activities outside of its self proclaimed frontiers of 00:01 May 15th 1948. NOTHING outside of those borders has ever been legally annexed to Israel by agreement with the Palestinians
Comment by talknic — February 3, 2017 @ 3:48 am
Hey stupid. Whatever happened prior to Israel proclaiming its borders in order to be recognized was relegated to being of historical interest only, irrelevant to the State of Israel’s proclaimed and recognized borders. NOTHING outside those borders was or is now Israeli
Comment by talknic — March 11, 2016 @ 3:37 am
Did you call me stupid? Palestinians never consented to being on an inch of Palestinian soil and have an inalienable right to return to their land. ‘israel’ has never defined its borders “…after we become a strong force, as a result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine.” – Ben Gurion
Comment by Blake — November 29, 2016 @ 5:22 am
No. I was addressing the stupid guy who cites documents that disprove his bizarre Ziotheories
Comment by talknic — December 4, 2016 @ 2:07 pm
The Ottoman Empire that had sovereignty for 400 years ceded sovereignty to the Mandatory Power in the Treaty of Sevres, and confirmed that it had relinquished its sovereignty in the Treaty of Lausanne. The Allies had won the territory in a defensive war. They could have annexed the territory or recognize it as belonging to another people. They chose to recognize the Jewish People but knew it would be impractical for a small minority to exercise sovereignty so they placed the collective political rights in trust to be called a Jewish National Homeland until the Jewish People met the standards of the trust i.e. a population majority where they were to rule, and the capability of exercising sovereignty. These standards were met in 1948 in some of the territory and in 1967 for the remainder.
Comment by Wallace Edward Brand — March 12, 2016 @ 2:57 am
Apart from your post being irrelevant Zionist bullsh*te, the Israeli Government proclaimed its borders per UNGA res 181 in their plea for recognition.
Nail this to your forehead and read it
May 15, 1948
11 minutes later, that’s how it was recognized and that’s how it was accepted into the UN. No state has ever recognized any further territories as belonging to Israel
Comment by talknic — March 12, 2016 @ 9:50 pm
You are mistaken. A British – French commission established the border with Syria. The eastern border of Palestine was initially just west of the Damascus-Hejaz Ry. but later was extended to the Iraq border. However territory east of the Jordan River was split off by Article 25 of the Mandate for Palestine and other action by Britain, approved by the League of Nations.. Other action split off Palestine in the south from the Arabian Peninsula. There has been continuous Jewish habitation in Palestine for 3,700 years. The Jews never gave up their collective rights to political self-determination in the territory the Romans changed the name of from Eretz Ysroel to Palestine.
They are the only surviving indigenous people.
Comment by Wallace Edward Brand — January 21, 2017 @ 3:58 am
“There has been continuous Jewish habitation in Palestine for 3,700 years”
The scriptures and archaeological evidence tell us someone was there long before any Jews . It’s also irrelevant to the actual borders of the State of Israel and that state’s illegal activities in territories outside of those borders
” The Jews never gave up their collective rights to political self-determination in the territory the Romans changed the name of from Eretz Ysroel to Palestine.”
Admirable and hey guess what. There IS now a state of Israel, has been since it was proclaimed and recognized
11 minutes later that’s how it was recognized and that’s how it was accepted into the UN. No state has ever recognized any further territories as belonging to Israel
“They are the only surviving indigenous people”
Bullsh*t Wallace. A) The Jewish scriptures tell us that Jews invaded B) It’s also irrelevant to the actual borders of the State of Israel and that state’s illegal activities in territories outside of those borders
Comment by talknic — February 3, 2017 @ 4:03 am
Hey Talking, where in the UN Charter does it give the UN Security Council the right to make judicial determinations of the roots of Jewish statehood?
Comment by Wallace Edward Brand — August 31, 2015 @ 11:13 pm
A) The UN Charter doesn’t. Did you have a point apart from making yourself look stupid?
B) What on earth is “Jewish Statehood”? I can’t find it listed among the world’s states http://www.state.gov/misc/list/ . There is an Israel, it’s territorial extent was recognized in accordance with the Israeli Government’s plea for recognition per UNGA res 181. That state has not since legally acquired any further territories.
Comment by talknic — September 1, 2015 @ 4:22 am
The UN General Assembly has no legislative authority. It has only authority to recommend. Read the Charter. That proposed state you are talking about died at birth when rejected by the Arabs.
Comment by Wallace Edward Brand — March 12, 2016 @ 3:01 am
“The UN General Assembly has no legislative authority”
The binding laws and UN Charter Chapters re-affirmed and emphasized in any UN resolution are by their very nature, binding!
“That proposed state you are talking about died at birth when rejected by the Arabs”
Hey stupid, the Israeli Government proclaimed its borders per UNGA res 181 in their plea for recognition. 11 minutes later, that’s how it was recognized and that’s how it was accepted into the UN. No further territories have ever been recognized as Israeli, because the acquisition of territories by war has been illegal since at least 1945 under the UN Charter
Comment by talknic — March 12, 2016 @ 9:45 pm
“In considering the decisionmaking 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.” Stephen Schwebel, Deputy Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State from the Secretary’s Report to the President on Reform and Restructuring of the U.N. System, June 1978
Comment by Wallace Edward Brand — January 21, 2017 @ 9:36 pm
The UN Charter and International Law are binding! They’re binding no matter what type of resolution they’re reaffirmed and emphasized in. UNGA resolutions often recommend parties adhere to BINDING UN Charter, BINDING International Law and BINDING Conventions.
Comment by talknic — January 29, 2017 @ 11:58 pm
Recognised in a non binding Resolution that was never ratified into law at the Security Council. Only the Palestinians can give ‘israel’ the legitimacy they crave, not anyone else
Comment by Blake — November 29, 2016 @ 5:24 am
The binding laws and UN Charter Chapters re-affirmed and emphasized in any UN resolution are by their very nature, binding!
Yes. Israel must come to an agreement with Palestine and thus far the Palestinians have been more than generous, Israel has offered nothing. It wants more.
Comment by talknic — December 4, 2016 @ 2:09 pm