AFSILA - Americans for Safe Israel - Los Angeles Chapter of AFSIAFSI.ORGAFSI EVENTSafsisfv.orgPhotos AfsiLALinks/News AFSILAEvents/Israel AFSILAContact AFSI LAAFSILA ArticlesAFSI - American Friends for a Safe IsraelA7 - Arutz 7Israel BoundriesAFSI ChaptersLand of IsraelIsrael International LawMiddle East FactsJerusalem UnitedPeace in Israel
Israel International Law

Americans For Safe Israel
AFSI

CLAIMS OF THE JEWISH AND ARAB PEOPLES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW TO THE
RIGHT OF POLITICAL SELF DETERMINATION IN PALESTINE
by Wallace Brand
Introduction
Most people don't understand that Palestine, or at least the alleged
"Palestinian People," has no right to be sovereign even though they
read UN Conventions dealing with the right of a “people” that
appear to say any "people" has the right to self-determination.
They haven't obeyed the scholar's imperative: "read on" to where
the Charter provides for "sovereign equality". These are the legal
code words guaranteeing the territorial integrity of sovereign
states.
CNH Long became the Dean of the Yale Medical School. When he
was a freshman at Oxford, one of his friends found in the 600 year
old rule book, a rule permitting the practice of archery in a certain
way between the hours of 2 and 6. In the intervening 550 years the
way had become a boulevard and then a major traffic artery. When
they practiced one day, they blocked traffic and caused a
considerable traffic jam.
They were haled before the Wardens who said they would be 2
punished. One of the students pointed to the rule, the Wardens
replied: “Read on.” and pointed to another rule two pages on that
provided: “When practicing archery one must be wearing Lincoln
Green. So Long and the other students were punished. They should
have read further.
By the 70s the natural law provision entitling a “people” to self determination
had become international law. But the international
lawyers drafting these provisions had inserted into the rules a
provision for “sovereign equality” — legal code words standing
for the proposition that a sovereign may not invade the boundary
of another sovereign’s territory. So while the law might provide for
the self-determination of a “people”, they could not unilaterally
secede from a preexisting state. That is the rule followed by the US
in the current Ukrainian controversy and pushed by it at the
European Union and NATO.
Most people also think that the basis for Israel's sovereignty was
the UN General Assembly's Resolution 181, the Partition
Resolution, not the 1920 San Remo Resolution and the Palestine
Mandate. The latter was a treaty approved by 52 League of Nations
members in 1922 and the US. This Mandate provided detail for the
Balfour Declaration policy adopted by the Allies word-for-word at
San Remo.
People were persuaded as above because the UN Committee on the
Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People,
dominated by Arabs and Africans, got a law professor at George
Washington University W.T. Mallison (and his wife Sally) to write
a legal opinion to the effect that the occupation of Judea and
Samaria was illegal under international law. The Committee
published it in pamphlet form in 1979. It was entitled "An
International Law Analysis of the Major United Nations
Resolutions Concerning the Palestine Question". How many
people on the street know anything at all about international law? 3
Most people reading it assumed that the UN General Assembly
was like the Congress. They assumed that when the UN General
Assembly enacted a resolution, it became a part of international
law. That is not so and the Mallisons did nothing to disabuse them
of that assumption. These UN General Assembly resolutions are
only recommendations. If they are accepted by all parties to a
dispute, the parties may enter into a treaty. That becomes a part of
international law. See e.g. The Effect of Resolutions of the U.N.
General Assembly on Customary International Law by Stephen M.
Schwebel, deputy legal advisor to the US Department of State in
Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of
International Law), Vol. 73(APRIL 26-28, 1979), pp. 301-309.
He said:
"It is trite but no less true that the General Assembly of the United
Nations lacks legislative powers. Its resolutions are not, generally
speaking, binding on the States Members of the United Nations or
binding in international law at large. It could hardly be otherwise.
We do not have a world legislature. If we had one, hopefully it
would not be composed as is the General Assembly on the basis of
the unrepresentative principle of the sovereign equality of states,
states which in turn are represented by governments so many of
which are themselves not representative of their peoples.
"As the [United States] Secretary of State recently put it: 'In
considering the decision making process in the United Nations, it
is important to bear in mind that while the one-state, one-vote
procedure for expressing the sense of the General Assembly is
from many points of view unsatisfactory, the incorporation of this
principle in the Charter was balanced by giving the Assembly only
recommendatory powers.'"
Schwebel went on to say there were some International Lawyers 4
that tried to fit recurring statements in UN Resolutions into the
category of long standing custom or practice between or among
states.
The Mallison legal opinion assumed that the UN Partition
Resolution was a part of International Law. It divided Palestine
west of the Jordan River into three parts. One part went to the
Jews, one part to the Arabs, and one part was to become, at least
initially, a "corpus separatum" to be ruled by a Committee of the
UN. That was the Jerusalem area -- containing many religious sites
that were holy for all three major religions.
That the legal opinion was a gross distortion of international law
outraged Julius Stone, an Australian,world recognized international
lawyer. In response he wrote a book published in 1981 entitled
Israel and Palestine: Assault on the Law of Nations. In it he
showed that the Major UN General Assembly Resolutions were not
international law because Resolution 181, the Partition Resolution,
although accepted by the Jews was not accepted by the Arabs and
therefore it died at birth. For that reason the Jews were not limited
to the territory they were assigned in Resolution 181. Also, the
Jews were not illegally in the Jerusalem area because the corpus
separatum also died at birth along with Resolution 181.
Mallison's legal opinion also opined that Arabs residing in
Palestine had, under international law, a right to self-determination.
But that right has never been awarded under international law in
the case of attempted secession where its application would have
empowered the UN to redraw the boundaries of an existing
sovereign state. It has only been applied to cases of decolonization.
Mallison ignored that all of Palestine west of the Jordan River was
recognized by some 53 states in 1922 as being owned by the Jews
when they approved the Palestine Mandate. Some 52 were
members of the League of Nations that approved it as a treaty and
the United States that wasn't a member of the League approved it 5
by a Joint Resolution of Congress in 1922 and in a separate treaty,
the Anglo-American Convention of 1924.
The chronology is this. At the Paris Peace Talks in 1919, claims to
the European and Middle East territories that the Allies had won in
WWI, for them a defensive war, were the subject of claims by
European parties and also by the Arab people and the Jewish
People. The Arabs through King Hussein claimed Syria, Iraq and
Palestine — the Jews, through the World Zionist Organization
claimed only Palestine, both east and west of the Jordan River. The
Allies disposed of the claims to European territories at Versailles
but did not resolve the claims to the Middle East territories until
they had reconvened at San Remo in 1920. There they placed the
political rights to Syria and Mesopotamia (now Iraq) in trust for
the Arab people who were in the majority in those areas when the
Arabs were capable of exercising sovereignty and placed the
political rights to Palestine in trust for the Jews in the light of their
historic association with Palestine. Why? At the time the Jewish
population in all of Palestine was only about 10% of the total, even
though the Jews had enjoyed a majority population in the
Jerusalem area since 1863 and a plurality since 1845. The British,
in their Balfour policy framed in November, 1917 had decided to
handle this by placing the political rights in trust not only until the
people in the territory were capable of exercising sovereignty but
also not until the Jews had attained a population majority by their
hard work to bring back to Palestine Jews from the diaspora to get
a population majority. This would avoid an "antidemocratic"
government, rule by a 10% minority — like the later French
recognition of the Alawites as sovereign over Syria that has
resulted in so much death and destruction. To award the Jewish
People only the equitable ownership of the political rights to
Palestine — the rights to self-determination, they would place
these political rights in trust, not to vest until the Jews had both a
population majority as well as the capability of exercising
sovereignty and would require the trustee to facilitate Jewish 6
immigration (but not Arab immigration) so as to obtain that
majority more quickly. However between 1920 and 1922 events in
Syria and in transJordan, Palestine east of the Jordan River had
motivated Britain to limit the area placed in trust for the Jews to
the territory of Palestine west of the Jordan. The Palestine Mandate
was drafted to specify in detail the new British Policy in Article 25,
a temporary limitation on Jewish settlement east of the Jordan.
In 1947 the British decided to abdicate their responsibilities as
trustee of the political rights to Palestine in 1948. The political
rights of the Jews matured in 1948 when the Jews attained a
population majority in the area within the Armistice boundary.
Instead of only an equitable interest, now, without formal
acclamation, the Jews now had a legal interest in the political
rights and the Jewish National Home had matured into a Jewish
reconstituted Commonwealth as originally conceived in the
framing of the Balfour Declaration. If those Arab people residing
in Palestine west of the Jordan had any right to self-determination,
the UN would have to redraw the boundary of the sovereign state
of Israel to exclude at least East Jerusalem from the sovereign
State of Israel, and also to exclude Judea and Samaria to which
Israel was entitled but to which Israel had not as yet asserted its
rights. This would violate Israel's territorial integrity that was
guaranteed by the UN Charter. My legal opinion to that effect can
be found at SSRN.com/abstract=2385304 and is shown below in
detail.
International Law is derived principally from treaties between or
among states, but also can be derived from long standing custom
between or among states. In 1984 those pushing Palestinian
statehood financed the publication of a scholarly appearing journal
entitled Palestinian Yearbook of International Law responding to
Professor Stone's treatise. In it, in an article entitled "The Juridical
Basis of Palestinian Self-Determination" the Mallisons attempted
to resurrect their legal opinion by trying to fit the UN's Partition 7
Resolution, that had died at birth, into the category of a
longstanding custom or practice of many states. That is hard to
accept because the Arab states that were a major part of the group
that dominated the UN and its Committee on the Exercise of the
Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, at the time of the
Partition Resolution had not accepted the Resolution as
international law but instead had rejected it so violently they had
gone to war.
PART I: "Roots Of Israel's Sovereignty And
Boundaries In International Law: In Defense Of
The Levy Report
Part I first examines the legal basis of the Levy report, which
concluded that Jewish settlements are legal. In fact, the legality of
Israel's presence in Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem was res
judicata as of April 25, 1920, when [at the San Remo Conference]
World Jewry received a beneficial interest in the political rights to
Palestine that was intended to mature into a legal interest. The
policy for the Arab States that were established at around the same
time by other Mandates was to bestow on the current Arab
inhabitants of those states an equitable interest in the political
rights to those states, but the beneficiary for Mandated Palestine
was not the Jews residing in Palestine but World Jewry. The
Mandate thus confirmed a living connection between the Jews and
their homeland, extending over some 3700 years. Modern Israel
was legally projected to be molded in two stages, where [1]
"Palestine was legally recognized as a Jewish National Home -- as
a prelude to [2] a reconstituted Jewish State," which would come
into being when the Jews in Palestine were in the majority. Part I
also discusses the sorry history of Britain’s role as trustee.
In sum, "the Mandate system provided in Article 22 of the League 8
of Nations’ Covenant was designed to help states that had been
subject to Ottoman occupation for 400 years, to become
independent after they learned democratic principles, formed
political parties and were able to self govern. An exception was the
Mandate for Palestine where the Jewish People who had largely
been driven out of Palestine and dispersed by the Romans, were
recognized as the equitable owners of the political rights." World
Jewry became the cestui que trust.
The  decision  on  whether  the  Arabs  or  the  Jews  have 
sovereignty  over  all  of  Palestine  west  of  the  Jordan 
River  under  International  Law  is  res  judicata,  lawyer 
talk for "the issue has already been decided".
We tell you below who the judges were, what gave them 
jurisdiction or authority to make the decision, when the 
competing  claims  were  received  and  when  they  were 
acted  upon,  how  the  Judges  communicated  their 
decision,  and  why  the  decision  was  to  provide  a  two‐
step  process,  first  a  Jewish  National  Home  and  then  a 
Jewish State.
The  recent  Levy  Report  is  one  of  a  series  of  legal 
opinions  by  several  people,  each  independently 
reaching  the  same  conclusion.  This  is  the  conclusion 
that World Jewry has had as of 1920, a Jewish National 
Home in  all  of  Palestine,  or  since  1922  at least in  that 
part of Palestine west of the Jordan River. That National 
Home  was  always  intended  to  be  a  prelude  to  a 
reconstituted  Jewish State in Palestine.  It was a part of 
the  mandate  system  provided  for  in  the  League  of 
Nations  Covenant  or  charter,  Article  22.  These 
mandated  areas  were  areas  ruled  from  afar  for  many 9
years  and  were  intended  to  be  helped  by  more 
established states to become self‐governing states when 
they  were  found  to  be  ready  for  it.  The  Mandate  for
Palestine  had  different standards  for  statehood.  It  was 
to  become  a  reconstituted  viable  Jewish  State  of  Israel 
when it met two standards originally established i.e.  to 
attain  a  majority  of  Jewish  population  in  the  area 
governed,  and  to  become  as  capable  of  exercising 
sovereignty as any modern European State.
Recent Levy Report on whether settlements  in Judea, 
Samaria and East Jerusalem are illegal
I started my own inquiry and analysis several years ago. 
It was commenced before  the recent publication of  the 
report  of  the  Levy  Commission  [1]  finding  that  Jewish 
Settlements  in  Judea  and  Samaria  were  not  illegal  as 
Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention [2] prohibiting 
the  "deportation  or  transfer"  of  its  citizens  was  not 
applicable  to  decisions  of  individual  Israeli  citizens  to 
move their place of residence. Permitting them to do so 
or  even  facilitating  the  relocation  was  not  the 
proscribed  exercise  of  State  Power.  The  Levy  Report
held that the 4th Geneva Convention was directed solely 
at prohibiting the exercise of state power. Under Article 
2  of  the  Convention,  Any  occupation  must  be  of  the 
territory  of  another  party.    But  below  we  show  that
Palestine  west  of  the  Jordan  belonged  to  the  Jewish
People in 1967, not another party.  The report also held 
that the claim by Israel to the ownership of the political 10
rights  to  this  territory  was  a  good  claim  based  on  the 
1920 San Remo Resolution and on  the British Mandate 
for  Palestine  as  of  1922  [3]  because  The  San  Remo 
decision,  a  treaty  among  the  Principal  Allied  War 
Powers, had  adopted  the  1917  Balfour  Declaration  of 
British Policy [4] with the result that it had now become 
International Law. The 1922 League of Nations Mandate 
for  Palestine,  providing  detail  for  administering  the 
content of the Balfour Declaration [5] confirmed the San 
Remo  agreement  as  the  source  of  Jewish  political  or 
national  rights  to  Palestine,  with  a  new  Article  25
intended  to  limit  Jewish  settlement  East  of  the  Jordan 
River.
Other opinions reaching the same conclusion
In the course of my own inquiry, I learned that before I 
had  started,  Dr.  Jacques  Gauthier  had  compiled  a 
monumental  1400  page  doctoral  thesis,  [6]  Dr. 
Gauthier's  work  was  followed  by  a  legal  tome  of  732 
pages written by Howard Grief, Esq. a Canadian lawyer 
now residing in  Israel.[7] Grief's book was followed by 
that of a non‐lawyer, Mr. Salomon Benzimra of Toronto, 
who stated in a much shorter and more readable work
— with helpful maps — the factual premises leading to 
the  legal  conclusions  of  Gauthier  and  Grief.  His  book 
was published in Kindle by Amazon in November, 2011. 
[8]  My  own  view  was  initially  published  on‐line  in  a 
blog — Think‐Israel.org — but  thereafter, with greater 11
documentation,  in  a  two  part  op  ed  in  a  conservative 
newspaper in Israel known as Arutz Sheva. [9]
My  legal  opinion  was  followed  by  the  opinion  of  Dr. 
Cynthia  Wallace,[10]  who  had  been  retained  by  a 
Christian  Evangelical group.  Finally, a  recent  report  by 
the  Levy  Commission  authorized  by  the  current  Prime 
Minister  of  Israel  [English  translation  of  the  legal 
arguments in the Levy Report (updated) [11] contained 
the legal  opinions  of  three  distinguished  Israeli jurists. 
One  was  the  late  Justice  Edmund  Levy,  formerly  a 
Justice of the Supreme Court of Israel. These jurists, for 
the  first  time,  delivered  an  opinion  on  the  status  of 
Judea,  Samaria  and  East  Jerusalem  that  was  not 
dominated by an Israeli left wing Labour Government.
All  these  opinions  have  only  minor  differences  and 
reach  the  same  conclusion  — that  World  Jewry  owns 
the political or national rights to all of Palestine West of 
the Jordan, and possibly some of that east of the Jordan 
as well. Legal opinions reaching the same conclusion, to 
my knowledge, go back at least to 1993 [12] so it cannot 
be said to be a recent politically inspired  fabrication as 
some of its critics have charged. See especially, "Israel's 
Rights  to  Samaria"  [13]  and  excellent  articles  by 
Douglas  Feith  and  Elliott  A.  Green.[14]  Feith  was  later 
the  Deputy  Secretary  of  Defense  for  Policy  under 
Rumsfeld in  the George W Bush Administration; Elliott
Green is an Israeli researcher. The critics with this view
have responded ad hominem but few have raised issues 
of  fact  or  law.    More  recently  I  have  encountered  the 
opinion  of  the  acclaimed  international  lawyer,  the  late 12
Julius  Stone  of  Australia,  the  author  of  Israel  and 
Palestine: Assault on the Law of Nations. [15a]
The major points of the Levy Report
In  the  Levy  Report,  the  first issue was whether  Jewish 
settlements in Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem, three 
areas invaded by  the Arab Legion in 1948 and illegally 
occupied until 1967, were unlawful. The Israeli Labour 
Government  lawyer,  Theodor  Meron  [15b]  had 
suggested  the  proper  law  to  apply  was  the  law  of 
"belligerent  occupation." Belligerent occupation  occurs 
when a belligerent state invades the territory of another 
sovereign  state  with  the  intention  of  holding  the 
territory  at  least  temporarily.  That  law  is  based  on 
Article  43  of  the  4th  Hague  Convention  of  1907  that 
assumes  that  land  being  occupied  has  a  legitimate 
sovereign.  It  is  not  applicable  because  Jordan  was 
illegally  occupying  it  after  an  aggressive  invasion  in 
1948.  Another  Labour  Party lawyer,  Talia  Sasson,  [16] 
also  claimed  the  occupation  was  illegal,  also  assumed 
belligerent  occupation,  and  strongly  criticized  the 
settlements.  But  even  if  belligerent  occupation  were
found  applicable,  there  would  have  to  be  shown  that
under  the  Geneva  Convention  the  state  of  Israel  had
"deported or transferred" the "settlers". These "settlers" 
[17] were individuals who had decided on their own for 
economic or religious reasons to move to a new place to 
live  outside  the  1949  Armistice  "Green  Line".  Some  of 
them  were  re‐settlers,  who  just  wanted  to  return  to 13
their homes — after the area had been liberated. Their 
homes were in a place  that had been illegally occupied 
by Jordan and they had been expelled by Jordan in 1948 
or  thereafter.  They  clearly  were  not  "deported"  by 
Israel and if they relocated under their own motivation 
for patriotic reasons, religious reasons or just to go back 
to the home from which they were expelled in 1948, no 
state  had  "transferred"  them.  They  simply  moved  for 
their own reasons.
The  term  "transfer" must  be  distorted  to  be applied  to 
situations it simply was not intended to cover such as a 
movement  of  that  kind.  The  4th  Geneva  Convention  is 
directed  at  state  action,  not  the  action  of  individuals. 
The  earlier  opinions  of  Labour  Government  lawyers 
took  a  Convention  that  was  directed  at  states  and 
attempted  to  apply  it  to  individuals  by  holding  that  it 
meant  that  the  State  of  Israel  was  required  to  prevent 
its Jewish  citizens  from  moving  where  they  wanted  to 
even  though  preventing  them from  doing  so  would 
violate  the  UN  Universal  Declaration  of Human  Rights, 
Articles  13  and  15(2).[18]  One  of  the  authors  of  the 
Levy  Report  had  in  2011  written  about  the 
interpretation that distorted the word "transfer".[19]
After finding that the Geneva Convention did not apply, 
the Levy Commission looked to determine the state that
did  have  sovereignty  over  the  area  conquered  by  the
Arab Legion in 1948.[20]
In  1948,  the  Arab  Legion,  acting  as  the  army  of 
transJordan that later became the Nation State of Jordan, 
invaded  the  area  that  had  been  ruled  by  the  British14
Mandatory  government  for  Palestine  as  the  trustee 
under  the Mandate  for  Palestine.  It  was  soon  after the 
Mandate  or  trust  had  been  abandoned  by  its  trustee,
Great  Britain.  Israel  had  announced  its  independence 
and  was  ruling  as  the  reconstituted  State  of  Israel  as 
had  been  recommended  by  the  UN  General  Assembly 
Resolution 181.[21]
The Arab Legion was an Army consisting in the main of 
Arab  transJordanian  soldiers  but  they  were  supplied 
with  arms  by  the  British  and  led  by  British  Officers 
under  the  command  of  British  General  Glubb,  (Glubb 
Pasha)  even  though  Britain  the  US  and  many  other 
countries  had  embargoed  arms  to  Israel.  For  some  19 
years,  from  1948  to  1967,  Jordan  illegally  occupied 
what  had  been Judea,  Samaria  and  East  Jerusalem. 
Under its rule all the 58 synagogues in the area but one 
were  destroyed;  some  38,000  tombstones  from  the 
Jewish Cemetery on the Mount of Olives were broken or 
defaced;  all  Jews  were  expelled  from  the  area  it 
acquired.  Jordan's  promises  in  the  1948  Armistice 
Agreement  to  permit  visits  by  Christians  and  Jews  to 
their holy places were not kept.  In 1967, when  the IDF 
reached  the  Western  Wall  of  the  Temple  Mount,  they 
found a latrine had been built against it.
While  the  former leftist  Labour  Government  lawyers 
had  held  after  1967  that  Israeli  was  holding  the 
territory under  the  Law  of Belligerent Occupation, it is 
hard  to  see  how  they  arrived  at  that  conclusion.  That 
doctrine only applies to belligerent occupation against a 
lawful  sovereign  in  an  area.  Only  two  countries  in  the15
whole  world,  Britain  and  Pakistan  had  recognized 
Jordan's sovereignty over what they renamed the "West 
Bank".  All  of  Jordan's  territory  dating  back  to  before 
1948 was on the East Bank of the River Jordan. Perhaps 
they  renamed  the  area  the  Israelis  had  liberated  —
called  Judea, Samaria and East  Jerusalem since historic 
times — "The West Bank" because they would look silly 
claiming  that  the  Jews  were  illegally  occupying  Judea. 
(Hats off to Professor Steven Plaut)
The San Remo Resolution
Israel's roots in International Law start in the San Remo 
Resolution  of 1920 and not as most assume, in  the UN 
General Assembly Resolution  of 1947.  It was  the latter 
that  recommended  Partition  of  Palestine  into  an  Arab 
and a Jewish state. In that resolution Jerusalem and the 
nearby  holy  places  were  to  be  held  separately  as  a 
corpus separatum at least  temporarily under control  of 
the UN. It was a recommendation that had no force and 
no effect because one of the parties it was addressed to, 
the Arabs, rejected it and went to war.
What is International Law
International  Law  is  created  by  treaties  (also  called 
"conventions)  between  and  among  states  or  by  long 
standing  custom.  International  Law  cannot  be  created 
by the UN. The UN General Assembly does not have that 
authority;  nor  does  any  international  entity.  The 16
International Court of Justice has no authority to create 
International  law.  This  is  particularly  true  where 
International  Law  recognizes  sovereignty  over  areas
such  as  Palestine.  That  is  because  the  UN  Charter  in 
Article  80  says  in  pertinent  part,  "...nothing  in  this 
Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any 
manner  the  rights  whatsoever  of  any  states  or  any 
peoples  or  the  terms  of  existing  international 
instruments  to  which  Members  of  the  United  Nations 
may respectively be parties. [22]
Its  being  saved  is  also  the  consequence  of  the  legal 
doctrines of "acquired legal rights" and of "estoppel. As 
explained  by  Howard  Grief  "the  principle  of  'acquired 
legal  rights'  which,  as  applied  to  the  Jewish  people, 
means that the rights they acquired or were recognized 
as  belonging  to  them  when  Palestine  was  legally 
recognized  by  52  nations as  the  Jewish National Home
[as  a  prelude  to  a  reconstituted  Jewish  State]  are  not 
affected  by  the  termination  of  the  treaty  or  the  acts  of 
international law which were the source of those rights. 
This principle already existed when the Anglo‐American 
Convention  came  to  an  end  simultaneously  with  the 
termination of the Mandate for Palestine on May 14‐15, 
1948.  It  has  since  been  codified  in  Article  70(1)(b)  of 
the  1969  Vienna  Convention  on  the  Law  of  Treaties. 
This  principle  of international law would apply even if 
one  of  the  parties  to  the  treaty  failed  to  perform  the 
obligations  imposed  on  it,  as  was  the  case  with  the 
British  government  in  regard  to  the  Mandate  for 
Palestine.17
The reverse side of the principle of acquired legal rights 
is  the  doctrine  of  estoppel  which  is  also  of  great 
importance  in  preserving  Jewish  national  rights.  This 
doctrine  prohibits  any  state  from  denying  what  it 
previously  admitted  or  recognized in  a  treaty  or  other
international agreement. In the Convention of 1924, the 
United  States  recognized  all  the  rights  recognized  as 
belonging  to  the  Jewish  people  under  the  Mandate,  in 
particular  the  right  of  Jewish  settlement  anywhere  in 
Palestine  or  the  Land  of  Israel.  Therefore  the  US 
government is legally estopped today from denying the 
right of  Jews in  Israel to establish settlements in Judea, 
Samaria  and  Gaza,  which  have  been  approved  by  the 
government of Israel." [23]
Article  80  is  in  UN  Chapter  XII  that  gives  the  UN  the
authority  to  establish  and  administer  trust  territories. 
That is pertinent because  Israel once was a "mandate". 
The UN calls them "trusteeships". "Mandate" is what the 
League  of  Nations,  the  UN's  predecessor  in  world 
government  called  an  area  placed  in  trust  until  it  was 
capable of self government. Recognition of this political 
or  national  right  was  saved  by  Jews  concerned  about
the rights under the British Mandate for Palestine when 
the UN was given authority to deal with trusteeships as 
the  Mandate  was  a  trusteeship  under  the  League  of 
Nations name. [24]
The Paris Peace Talks and the decision at San Remo18
To  understand  the  San  Remo  Agreement  we  must  go 
back in time to WWI when the Turkish Ottoman Empire 
entered  the War on  the side of Germany. Germany and 
Turkey  lost  that  war.  They  entered  into  an  Armistice 
Agreement  on  November  11,  1918.  As  the  holder  of 
territory after  being  the winner  of a defensive war  the 
Principal  Allied  War  Powers  — The  British 
Commonwealth, France, the US, Italy and Japan — were 
entitled  under  International  Law  of  long  standing 
custom  to  occupy  the  Ottoman  Empire  until  a  peace 
treaty was signed that delineated boundaries agreed on 
by the parties. After the Paris Peace talks that were held 
commencing  January  4th,  1919  the  Principals 
determined  to  establish  a  world  government  to 
maintain peace to be entitled The League of Nations. Its 
Covenant  or  charter  was  Part  One  of  the  Treaty  of 
Versailles.  The  participants  to  the  Paris  Peace  talks 
included  the  Principal  War  Powers  and  European 
claimants  primarily interested in  territories in  Europe. 
Even before the end of the war, in November, 1917 the 
Lord  Balfour  Policy  had  been  established  as  British 
policy that World Jewry would be the beneficiary of the 
trust of the “political” or “national rights” to Palestine. 
These  are  the  rights  that  entitle  political  self‐
determination.    Both  Arabs  and  Jews  interested  in 
territories in  the  Middle  East  were  also  present  at  the 
Peace Talks in Paris and submitted their claims there.
The Arabs claims were made under the auspices of King 
Ibn  Hussayn,  however  they  were  presented  by 
Lawrence  of Arabia and also  through George Antonius. 19
Antonius brought up Arab and French claims conflicting 
with  the  Balfour  Declaration,  notably  claims  based  on 
the  Hussayn‐McMahon  correspondence  and  the  secret 
Sykes‐Picot  Agreement.  Antonius  had  made  a  careful 
study of these and his arguments initially seemed quite 
convincing  that  the  British  had  sold  the  same  horse 
three times.
The Zionist Organization made the following claim for a 
two‐step  process  in  which  the  territory  would  first 
become  a  Jewish  National  Home  and  then  would 
become a reconstituted Jewish state.
"Palestine  shall  be  placed  under  such  political, 
administrative  and  economic  conditions  as  will  secure 
the  establishment  there  of  the  Jewish  National 
Home and ultimately render possible the creation of 
an  autonomous  Commonwealth, it  being  clearly 
understood  that  nothing  shall  be  done  which  may 
prejudice  the  civil  and  religious  rights  of  existing  non‐
Jewish  communities  in  Palestine  or  the  rights  and 
political  status  enjoyed  by  Jews  in  any  other  country.
[emphasis added]
To this end the Mandatory Power shall inter alia:
Promote  Jewish  immigration  and  close  settlement  on 
the  land,  the  established  rights  of  the  present  non‐
Jewish population being equitably safeguarded.
Accept  the  cooperation  in  such  measures  of  a  Council
representative of the Jews of Palestine and of the world 
that  may  be  established  for  the  development  of  the 20
Jewish  National  Home  in  Palestine  and  entrust  the 
organization of Jewish education to such Council
On being satisfied  that  the constitution of such Council 
precludes  the  making  of  private  profit,  offer  to  the 
Council  in  priority  any  concession  for  public  works  or 
for the development of natural resources that it may be 
found  desirable  to  grant. The  Mandatory  Power  shall 
encourage  the  widest  measure  of  self‐government  for 
localities practicable in the conditions of the country
There  shall  be  forever  the  fullest  freedom  of  religious 
worship  for  all  creeds  in  Palestine.  There  shall  be  no 
discrimination  among  the  inhabitants  with  regard  to
citizenship  and  civil  rights,  on  the  grounds  of  religion, 
or of race" [25]
What the Zionist organization was asking for in Paris in 
1919 was essentially the already decided British policy 
in  the  1917 Balfour Declaration  that  the Principal War 
Powers  later  adopted  at  San  Remo  in  1920:  That  the 
Jews  wanted  essentially  a  protectorate  that  would 
ultimately transition into a reconstituted state was well 
known as even the small Jewish population in Palestine 
did not believe it was ready to exercise sovereignty. As
reported  in  the  Voltaire  Network,  a  somewhat  anti‐
semitic  news  network,  of  the  three  things  the  Jewish 
People wanted, one was "the establishment of a  Jewish 
National  Home  in  Palestine  as  a  prelude  to  a 
reconstituted Jewish state". [emphasis added] [26]21
The Principal War Powers were able  to  complete  their 
review  and  implement  its  action  on  the  claims  over 
European  territories  in  the  Paris  Peace  Talks.  The 
written  decision  is  within  part  II  of  the  Treaty  of
Versailles. They needed to extend their deliberations to 
decide  on  the  claims  on  what  had  been  Ottoman 
territory  in  the  Middle  East.  To  do  just  that,  they  met 
again  in  San  Remo,  Italy  in  April,  1920  and  dealt  with
the Arab and  Jewish  claims  on April  24th and  25th. At 
the  end  of  that  meeting,  the  claims  were  res  judicata. 
The  WWI  Principal  War  Powers  decided  to  recognize 
the  then  current  Arab  inhabitants  of  Syria  and 
Mesopotamia  as  the  beneficial  owners  of  the  political 
powers for those countries but adopt the British Balfour 
policy  and  recognize  World  Jewry  as  the  beneficial 
owner of the political rights to Palestine.
Three documents recorded the decision of the Principal 
War  Powers  on  Palestine:  the  Treaty  of  Sevres,  the 
Treaty  of  Lausanne,  and  the  San  Remo  Resolution. 
Article 95 of the Treaty of Sevres was confirmed by the 
later Treaty of Lausanne as by  that  time  the cession —
transfer  of  sovereignty to  the  mandatory  power, a 
formal  giving  up  of  rights,  especially  by  a  state  — in 
Asia  was  a fait accompli and  Articles  16  and  30  of  the 
latter  treaty  left  Turkey's  relinquishment  of  its 
sovereignty over territories in Asia unchanged. The San
Remo  Resolution  was  also  a  writing  that  incorporated 
the  decision  of  the  Principal  War  Powers  on  those 
competing  claims  to  Palestine  adopting  the  Balfour 22
Declaration in terms that were left to be further spelled 
out in the Mandate for Palestine. But the British Balfour 
Policy,  while  recognizing  the  Jews  ownership  of  the
political  rights  to  Palestine,  did  not  want  them  to
exercise  sovereignty  immediately.  Nor  did  the  Jews 
want  to  do  so.  That  is  because  as  of  1917  when  the 
Balfour Policy was being considered by  the British,  the 
Jews in all of Palestine were only 60,000 population out 
of  a  total  population  of  600,000  as  estimated  by  the
British  Foreign  Office  (BFO).  As  long  ago  as  1845,  the 
Jews had had a plurality of the population of  Jerusalem 
and in 1863 a majority of the population there. But in all 
of  Palestine,  as  of  1917,  the  BFO  estimated  Jewish 
population at only 10% of the total.
Critics  of  the  Balfour  Policy  had  argued  that  a 
government  ruled  by  a  "people"  that  was  only  a  10% 
minority  would  be  "antidemocratic".  The  British 
Foreign  Ooffice  (“BFO”) countered  this  argument  by 
saying  that  even  though  Britain  agreed  with  the 
"antidemocratic"  argument  in  principle,  as  applied  to 
the  proposed  Balfour  policy  the  argument  was 
"imaginary".  In a memorandum of September 19, 1917, 
Arnold  Toynbee  and  Lewis  Namier,  speaking  for  the 
BFO,  said  that  the  political  rights  would  initially  be 
placed in trust — the trustee likely being England or the 
United  States.  The  trustee  would  have  legal  dominion 
over  the  political  rights  and  although  the  Jews  would 
have  a  beneficial  interest,  the  legal  interest  would  not 
vest until such time as the Jews had attained a majority 23
population  in  Palestine and  were  as  fully  capable  of 
exercising  sovereignty  as  a  modern  European  state. 
Their  decision  was  later  incorporated  in  article  95  of 
the treaty of Sevres by a cession of Ottoman sovereignty
over  Palestine  to  that  trustee,  incorporated  in  the  San 
Remo Resolution and  to  be  defined in greater  detail in 
the Mandate for Palestine.[27]
This same recommendation  for a two step process was
incorporated in the discussion in the Briefing Document 
of  the U.S. Delegation  to  the Paris Peace Conference, in 
1919.
"3. It is recommended that the Jews be invited to return 
to  Palestine  and  settle  there,  being  assured  by  the
Conference of all proper assistance in so doing that may 
be  consistent  with  the  protection  of  the  personal 
(especially the religious) and the property rights of the 
non‐Jewish population, and being further assured that it 
will be the policy of the League of Nations to recognize 
Palestine as a Jewish state as soon as it is a Jewish state 
in fact.
"It is right that Palestine should become a  Jewish state, 
if the  Jews,  being  given  the  full  opportunity,  make  it 
such.  It  was  the  cradle  and  home  of  their  vital  race, 
which has made large spiritual contribution to mankind, 
and  is  the  only  land  in  which  they  can  hope  to  find  a 
home of their own; they being in this last respect unique 
among significant peoples.
"At present, however, the Jews form barely a sixth of the 
total  population  of  700,000  in  Palestine,  and  whether 24
they  are  to  form  a majority,  or  even  a  plurality,  of  the 
population  in  the  future  state  remains  uncertain. 
Palestine,  in  short,  is  far  from  being  a  Jewish  country 
now. England, as mandatory, can be relied on to give the 
Jews  the  privileged  position  they  should  have  without 
sacrificing the rights of non‐Jews." [Note #12, p. 113.]
Woodrow Wilson  had  stated  in  1919  "I  am  persuaded 
that  the  Allied  nations,  with  the  fullest  concurrence  of 
our  own  government  and  people,  are  agreed  that  in 
Palestine  shall  be  laid  the  foundations  of  a  Jewish
Commonwealth."
A Mandate is a trust
The term "Mandate" applied in this context is confusing. 
It seems to mean an "order". But construed in the light 
of Article 22 of the Covenant or Charter of the League of 
Nations, it is clear  that in  the case of Mandates created 
as  envisioned  by  Article  22  of  the  League  Covenant  or 
charter,  such  as  the  Mandates  for  Palestine,  Syria  and 
Mesopotamia,  it  means  a  device  which  was  created 
under  the  British  legal  concepts  of  trusts  and 
guardianships. This was the conclusion in May of 1921, 
about  one  year  after  San  Remo,  by  a  British  barrister 
and member of the NY bar Duncan Campbell Lee in his 
lecture at University College, London University entitled 
"The  Mandate  for  Mespotamia  and  the  Principle  of 
Trusteeship in English Law." [Note #24] If the Mandate 
is a trust, what is the trust res, the thing placed in trust? 
It  must  be  the  political  or  national  rights  to  Palestine. 25
The most important question is "Who is the beneficiary 
of  the  trust?  All  who  have  looked  at  the  trust  and 
compared it with trusts for Syria and Mesopotamia have 
concluded that it is World Jewry.
Compare it yourself with the Mandate for Syria and the 
Mandate for Mesopotamia. For the latter, "This Organic 
law  shall  be  formed  in  agreement  with  the  native 
authorities  and  shall  take  into  account  the  rights, 
interests and wishes of all the Population inhabiting 
the mandated  territory, (Article 1 of  the Mandate  for 
Syria and The Lebanon) For Mesopotamia, now Iraq, the
mandate provided: This Organic law shall be framed in 
consultation  with  the  native  authorities  and  shall 
take into account the rights, interests and wishes of 
all the population of the mandated territory. (Article 
1 of the Mespotamia [Iraq] Mandate. [emphasis added}
However in  the  Palestine Mandate,  Article  2  says  "The
Mandatory shall be responsible  for placing  the country 
under  such  political,  administrative  and  economic 
conditions  as  will  secure  the  establishment  of  the 
Jewish national home as laid down in the preamble
and  the  establishment  of  self  governing  institutions" 
[emphasis added].
And  the  preamble  states  "Whereas  the Principle Allied 
Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be 
responsible  for  putting  into  effect  the  declaration
originally  made  on  November  2,  1917,  by  the 
Government  of  His  Britannic  Majesty  [The  Balfour 
Declaration] and adopted by the said Powers in favor of 
the  establishment  in  Palestine  of  a  national  home  for 26
the  Jewish  people,  it  being  clearly  understood  that
nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil 
and  religious  rights  of  the  non‐Jewish  communities  in 
Palestine  ... and Whereas recognition has  thereby been 
given  to  the  historical  connection  of  the  Jewish  people 
with  Palestine  and  to  the  grounds  for  reconstituting 
their national home in that country; ..."
Compare the Mandates
It  seems  clear  that  in  the  other  mandates,  the  rights, 
interests and wishes of the then current inhabitants are 
to be  taken into account but in Palestine Mandate  they 
were  ignored  in  favor  of  a  Jewish  National  Home  in 
which solely the advice of the Zionist Organization was 
to  be  taken  into  account  (Mandate  Article  4).  In  the 
Palestine  Mandate  only  Jewish  immigration  was 
expressly required  to be  facilitated with  the result  that 
eventually  a  Jewish  population  majority  would  have 
been attained.  (Mandate article  6)  It  therefore appears 
that the Jewish National Home was a beneficial interest 
in the political rights to Palestine, to mature into a later 
legal interest in  those  rights and  sovereignty  for  them. 
However  for  the non  Jews in  the existing population, it 
provided  only  protection  for  their  civil  and  religious 
rights  after  Jewish  sovereignty  was  achieved.  It  is
Jewish immigration  alone  that must  be  facilitated. It is 
the  Zionist  Organization  alone  reflecting  the  rights, 
interests  and  wishes  of  World  Jewry  that  was  the 27
appointed  advisor  to  the  Administration  set  up  by  the 
trustee to administer the Mandate.
Balfour resigned as foreign secretary following the Paris 
Conference in 1919, but continued in the Cabinet as lord 
president of the council. In a memorandum of August 11, 
1919 addressed to new Foreign Secretary Lord Curzon, 
he stated ...
"All  of  the  other  engagements  contained  pledges  that 
the Arab or Muslim populations could establish national 
governments  of  their  own  choosing  according  to  the 
principle of self‐determination. Balfour explained: "... in
Palestine  we  do  not  propose  to  even  go  through  the 
form of consulting the wishes of the present (majority) 
inhabitants of the country ..."
Balfour  stated  explicitly  to  Curzon: "The  Four  Great 
Powers [Britain, France, Italy and the United States] are 
committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong,
good or bad, is rooted in age‐long traditions, in present 
needs, and  future hopes, of  far profounder import  than 
the  desires  and  prejudices  of  the  700,000  Arabs  who
now  inhabit  that  ancient  land.  In  my  opinion  that  is 
right."  *  *  *  *  *    He  continued: "I  do  not  think  that 
Zionism will hurt the Arabs, but they will never say they 
want  it.  Whatever  be  the  future  of  Palestine  it  is  not 
now an 'independent nation', nor is it yet on the way to 
become one. Whatever deference should be paid to the 
views of those living there, the Powers in their selection 
of  a  mandatory  do  not  propose,  as  I  understand  the 
matter, to consult them."..."If Zionism is to influence the 28
Jewish  problem  throughout  the  world,  Palestine  must
be  made  available  for  the  largest  number  of  Jewish 
immigrants"[28]
Was  the  League  of  Nations  creator  or  settler  of  the
trust? No it was the Principal Allied Powers who met at 
San  Remo  according  to  Douglas  Feith  [Note  #14].  It  is
they  who  by  winning  the  war  had  the  authority  to 
dispose of the territories as they saw fit. It is also those 
Powers, not  the League who accepted Britain's offer  to 
serve as Mandatory Power or Trustee at San Remo.
A Trustee has fiduciary obligations
Britain's  offer  and  the  Principal  Allied  Power's 
acceptance  of  Britain  as  Trustee  on  April  25,  1920 
created a  fiduciary  relationship  between  the  cestui que
trust, World Jewry, and the Trustee. This principle is so 
well recognized in British and American law it needs no 
citation.  It  created  a  duty  that  required  Britain  to  give 
priority  to  the  beneficiary's  interest  over  its  own
economic  and  political  interests.  The  agreement 
between  the  Grantor  and  the  Trustee  was  effective  in 
April, 1920 not 1922, the date when the parties agreed 
the Mandate  would  become  effective.  This  raises  a 
question  on  whether  Britain  violated  its  fiduciary 
responsibilities  when  it  eliminated  from  the  political 
rights being placed in  trust  those pertaining  to Eastern 
Palestine.29
What was the role of the League of Nations? Balfour saw 
it only as the instrument to carry out this policy. Balfour, 
on  presenting  the  Mandate  to  the  League  of  Nations 
stated:
"Remember that a mandate is a self‐imposed limitation 
by  the  conquerors  on  the  sovereignty  which  they 
obtained  over conquered  territories.  It  is  imposed  by 
the Allied and Associated Powers on  themselves in  the 
interests  of  what  they  conceived  to  be  the  general 
welfare of mankind...." "The League of Nations is not the 
author of the policy, but its instrument.... ".
Britain's role was that of the Mandatory or trustee. But 
the conquerors, the Principal Allied Powers, did not give 
the political rights to World Jewry as a gift. The political 
rights were recognized as belonging to the Jews because 
of  the  long  "historical  connection  of  the  Jewish  People 
with  Palestine"  a  history  extending  over  some  3,700 
years with a continuous presence of Jews during all that 
time.
Article 95, Treaty of Sevres — was it legally effective?
The  Turks  had  regrouped  and  fought  the  Allies  again
over territories in Europe. So the Treaty of Sevres which 
also  covered  those  areas  was  never  ratified  by  Turkey 
but was superseded by the Treaty of Lausanne. By that 
time the decisions pertaining to the Middle East were a 
fait  accompli.  By  not  changing  things  the  Treaty  of 
Lausanne, in Article 16 and 30 ratified Article 95 of the 
treaty of Sevres that was the ruling of the Principal War 30
Powers on the competing claims of the Arabs and Jews. 
That ended any claim of the Ottomans and left its status 
up to the other parties concerned. Article 95 had ceded 
Ottoman  sovereignty  over  Palestine  to  the  Mandatory 
Power in trust for the Jews. Nota bene that the Mandates 
for Syria and Mesopotamia were also established in that 
treaty.  The  Syrian  Mandate  was  subsequently  divided 
into two, a Syrian Mandate into which the Muslims were 
to be located, and Lebanon for the Christians.
The British truncated the Jewish Political Rights
But an interesting  thing happened between  the  time of 
the  meeting  in  San  Remo  and  the  confirmation of  the 
League  Mandate  for  Palestine.  The  language  of  the 
Mandate was changed to deal differently with Palestine 
east  of  the  Jordan  River  known  as  "transJordan'  in 
contrast  to  cisJordan  that  referred  to  Palestine west  of 
the  Jordan, between  the  Jordan and the Mediterranean 
Sea. An Article 25 had been inserted in paragraph 25 of 
the later 1922 draft, as it was presented  to  the League 
by  Britain.  Britain  had  on  April  25,  1920  agreed  to 
assume  the  responsibilities  of  a  fiduciary.  The  later 
draft  provided  for  temporarily  suspending  Jewish 
settlement in transJordan.
How did  this come about? King Hussayn who was  then 
ruler  in  the  Hedjaz  in  the  Arabian  Peninsula  had  four 
sons.  Believing  that  his  agreement  with  the  British 
resulting  from  his  correspondence  with  McMahon 31
would  give  him  a  wide  area  covering  Syria  and 
Mesopotamia  (now  Iraq)  as  well  as  the  Arabian 
peninsula,  he  told  his  son  Feisal  that  he  would  rule  in 
Syria and Abdullah to my recollection in Iraq. The third 
son would inherit Hussayn's  throne and  the  fourth one 
was  not interested in  positions  of  power.  In  the  secret 
Sykes‐Picot agreement, the Governments of Europe split 
up  the  former  Ottoman  territory  into  spheres  of 
influence.  England  was  to  get  Palestine  and 
Mesopotamia (now Iraq), and France would get Syria.
Immediately after the war, England had placed Feisal on 
the  throne  in  Syria.  When  he  asserted  independence,
France was offended and after the Battle of Maysalun, it 
deposed  Feisal.  Abdullah,  who  was  very  warlike, 
marched  his army into  transJordan and made  ready  to 
attack  Damascus.  Churchill  did  not  want  the  Arabs  to
war against the French so he gave the throne of Iraq to 
Feisal.  The  story  can  be  filled  in  from  the  Diary  of  Sir 
Alec  Kirkbride,  one  of  three  British  officers  who  were 
told  after  WWI  to  set  up  governments  in  transJordan. 
After he had set up a government Kirkbride was warned 
that  Abdullah  was  marching  his  army  toward  his  area
and wired  the  British  headquarters in  Jerusalem.  They 
wired  back  telling  Kirkbride  to  ignore  the  warning  as 
Abdullah would never invade a territory being ruled by 
His  Majesty's  government.  When  Abdullah  did,  in  fact,
show  up,  Kirkbride  had  only  a  few  policeman  to  help 
him and wisely decided not to fight. He wired Jerusalem 
once  again  and  this  time  His  Majesty's  government, 
decided that it was a fait accompli. At a meeting in Cairo 32
on March 21, 1921 Churchill decided the best way out of 
this problem was to limit the political rights of the Jews 
to Palestine west of the Jordan. Kirkbride then chuckles 
over  the  "remarkable discovery"  made  by  the 
government that the framers of the Balfour policy never 
really wanted to give all of Palestine to World Jewry for 
its  Jewish  National  Home.  Why  then  did  the  Toynbee‐
Namier  memorandum  predating  the  Balfour 
Declaration assume that the 600,000 total population of 
all  of  Palestine  would  be  under  Jewish  rule  but  for
putting the political rights in trust? [29]
As  for  the  Hussayn‐McMahon  correspondence,  George 
Antonius  claimed  that  the  British  had  promised  King
Ibn Hussayn  the  rule  of  Syria,  and  Palestine  as well  as 
the  Arabian  Peninsula  if  he  got  the  Arab  tribesmen  to 
revolt  against  the  Ottomans.  But  as  shown  by  Isaiah 
Friedman,  Hussayn  had  told  McMahon  that  he  would 
get  some  258,000  fighters  to  fight  on  behalf  of  the
British and at the most came up with about 5,000.[30] It 
appears  there  was  a  failure  of  consideration  for  any 
promise McMahon had made. There was a question on 
whether  Hussayn  was  promised  any  territory  that  his 
own fighters had not conquered. And in fact in Syria and 
Palestine  none  of  the  Arabs  fought  on  the  side  of  the 
British  and  many  fought  for  the  Ottomans.  Finally 
assuming these were not a problem there was a dispute 
over  the  territory  that  Hussayn  was  promised  even 
though his  fighters had conquered it. A line was drawn 
that would eliminate  territory  to  the west and south of 33
the  line  as  being  an  area  that  should  be  under  the 
control  of  others  and  Palestine  was  excluded  and 
according  to  the  British,  Hussayn  understood  that 
Palestine  was  excluded.  Moreover  the  British  also 
contended that the Hussayn‐McMahon Correspondence 
had never matured into a final agreement.
The  change in  the Mandate  decided  after  San  Remo in 
March,  1921  was  worded  only  to  be  a  temporary 
suspension  of  Jewish  settlement  in  transJordan  but 
transJordan  eventually  matured  into  the  country  of 
Jordan  and  was  eventually  ceded  to  Abdullah  and  his 
Hashemite  tribe  even  though  Abdullah  and  his  Tribe 
was  a  "foreign  power"  from  the Hedjaz  of  the  Arabian 
Peninsula,  expressly  prohibited  from  receiving  any  of 
the political rights in trust.
This,  the  1922  White  Paper  was  the  first  example  of 
England breaking its obligations to the Jews. It would do 
so  again  and  again  in  the  White  Papers  of  1930  and 
1939 even after the confirmation of the Mandate by the 
League of Nations in July, 1922. Britain had volunteered 
at  San  Remo  in  April  to  be  the  mandatory  power  or 
trustee of  the League of Nations Mandate  for Palestine. 
As a trustee it owed the beneficial owner of the trust res
the obligations of a  fiduciary. A  fiduciary's obligation is 
to prefer its beneficiary's interests over those of its own. 
Yet England in  July, 1922 had persuaded  the League to 
change the terms of the trust the Principals had agreed 
to  at  San  Remo,  to  solve  Britain's  own  political 
difficulties with France. This cost the beneficiary, World 
Jewry. some 40% of  the  territory extending east  to  the34
Hejaz Railway that had initially been recognized by the 
Principal  Allied  Powers  as  the  area  they  wanted 
recognized as Jewish.
Britain's retreat from the Balfour policy.
Through the meeting at San Remo, all the Principal War 
Powers  were  very  protective  of  the  rights  of  World 
Jewry. When at San Remo, the French wanted to amend 
the  "savings  clause"  saving  the  "civil  and  religious 
rights"  of  non  Jewish  communities  when  the  Jews 
ultimately  exercised  sovereignty  in  Palestine,  to  add 
"political rights" the British and the other Principal War 
Powers declined  to accept  the amendment. France was
satisfied with a "process verbal" a side agreement noted 
in the minutes explaining that the savings clause meant 
that  the  non‐Jews  would  not  have  to  surrender  any  of 
their rights. That was acceptable  to  the others because 
all knew that the Arabs in Palestine had never exercised 
sovereignty  there.  The  only  "people"  in  Palestine  that 
had exercised self government in Palestine was the Jews. 
After  the  Churchill  White  Paper  of  1922  diminished 
Jewish rights East of the Jordan River, Perfidious Albion 
continued  to abuse its position as Mandatory Power or 
trustee in the British Passfield White Paper of 1930 and 
the MacDonald White Paper of 1939. In 1939 it adopted 
a  British  White  paper  blocking  further  Jewish 
immigration  into  Palestine  West  of  the  Jordan  at  the 
request  of  the  Arabs.  It  did  this  despite  an  express
requirement  of  the  Mandate  or  trust  that  the  trustee 35
should "facilitate" Jewish immigration" into Palestine so 
that  the  Jews  would  ultimately  become  the  majority 
population and the Jewish National Home could change
into a reconstituted Jewish state. The 1939 White Paper 
would  freeze  Jewish  population  at  about  a  one  third 
minority. It contemplated a grant of self government to 
the  population  of  Palestine  in  1949  but  with  Jewish
immigration  blocked,  there  would  still  be  an  Arab 
majority.
Many  of  those  who  had  participated  in  the  original 
deliberations  on  the  Balfour  policy  that  had  been 
adopted  at  San  Remo  strongly  objected.  David  Lloyd‐
George  who  had  been  the  Prime  Minister  of  England 
then,  characterized  this  action  as  "an  act  of  national 
perfidy which will bring dishonor  to  the British name." 
Winston  Churchill,  in  the  House  of  Commons, 
condemned  the  Paper  as  "plainly  a  breach  and 
repudiation of the Balfour Declaration" and he referred 
to  it  as  "another  Munich"  (Neville  Chamberlain  was 
Prime  Minister  in  1939).  Harry  Truman,  then  a  U.S. 
Senator  also criticized  the  1939  White  Paper  as  a 
"repudiation  of  British  obligations"  and  President 
Franklin  Roosevelt  expressed  his  "dismay  [at]  the 
decisions  of  the  British  Government  regarding  its 
Palestine Policy". That 1939 White Paper even blocked 
the sale of property in Palestine to the Jews.36
The MacDonald 1939 White Paper was Illegal
But  even  more  importantly,  the  League  of  Nations 
Permanent Mandates Commission whose duty it was to 
oversee  the Mandatories appointed by  the League, was 
unanimous  that  the  interpretation  on  which  the  1939 
White  Paper  was  based  was  inconsistent  with  the 
interpretation previously placed on it by the Mandatory. 
That  Commission,  by  a  majority,  ruled  that  the 
interpretation  was  inconsistent  with  the  express 
obligations  of  the  Mandate,  i.e.  to  facilitate  Jewish 
immigration  into  Palestine  so  that  the  Jews  would 
become  a  majority  and  could  become  a  reconstituted 
Jewish State.
Under the terms of the 1939 White Paper a single Arab 
majority  state  was  contemplated  by  1949,  completely 
abandoning  the  objective  of  the  Balfour  Agreement. 
This was a unilateral measure without the prior consent 
of  the  Council  of  the  League  of  Nations,  therefore 
violating  Article  27  of  the  Mandate  that  required  its 
approval  before  any  modification.  A  meeting  of  that 
Council was  scheduled  for  September  8,  1939  but was 
never  held  because  of  the  outbreak  of  WWII. 
Nevertheless  the  British,  for  the  next  ten  years  from 
1939  until  May,  1948  viciously  enforced  an  illegal 
blockade  preventing  Jews  from  fleeing  death  in  Nazi
extermination  camps  and  later  blocking  Holocaust 
survivors from reaching sanctuary in Israel even though
the  blockade  had  been  determined  to  be illegal  by  the 37
Permanent  Mandates  Commission  authorized  to  make 
that  determination.  Its  enforcement  contributed to  the 
death of some six million  Jews who were  trying  to  flee 
from  the  European Holocaust.  It lasted,  because  of  the 
obsessed  Ernest  Bevin,  even  after  the  war,  blocking
Holocaust  survivors  from  entering  a  place  where  they 
could  received  help  from  others  of  their  people.[31] 
[32]
In 1947 the British after seeking monetary and military 
aid  from  the United States  that was denied, announced 
its  proposed  abandonment  in  1948  of  its  trusteeship
that  it  said  it  could  no  longer  afford.  The  UN,  had
replaced  the  League  of  Nations  as  world  government, 
and  this  new  world  government  included  the  United 
States as a member.  It  had as Article  80  of its  Charter, 
preserved  the  recognition  by  its  51‐state  membership 
of the Jews ownership of the political rights to Palestine, 
now reduced to Palestine west of the Jordan River. The 
UN  formed  a  special  committee  to  determine  what 
should  be  done,  because  of  the  threatened  violence  of 
the Arabs. [33]
The UN Partition Recommendation
The UN General Assembly, after  the Special Committee 
completed  its  deliberations,  enacted  a  resolution, 
Resolution 181 [34] recommending that Palestine West
of  the  Jordan  should  be  divided  into  Arab  and  Jewish
states and a Corpus Separatum encompassing Jerusalem 38
and  surrounding  religious  holy  sites.  Such a 
recommendation  is  of  no  continuing  force  and  effect
unless  both  parties  to  it  accept  the  recommendation. 
One  party,  the  Jews,  did.  They  were  willing  to  give  up 
much of  their political rights in exchange  for an end  to 
the  threats  of  violence  and  so  they  could  aid  in  the 
immigration of Holocaust survivors.
The  Secretary  General  of  the  Arab  League  had 
threatened  war.  He  said:  "This  war  will  be  a  war  of
extermination  and  a  momentous  massacre  which  will 
be  spoken  of  like  the  Mongol  massacre  and  the 
Crusades." The  Arabs  declined  to  accept  the 
compromise  and  went  to  war.  The  Arab  warfare  was 
initially  conducted  by  Arabs local  to  Palestine  but  was 
soon joined by seven armies of surrounding Arab States. 
Some  450,000  to  700,000  Arabs  fled  without  seeing  a 
single Jewish soldier although a few at Ramle and Lydda 
were  removed  by  the  Jewish  forces  because  after 
agreeing to an armistice they had resumed fighting and 
the Jews did not want them in back of their lines. As to 
almost all  the  rest,  the  rich left  first,  followed by many 
more at  the  urging  of  the Arab Higher  Committee who 
asked them to get out of the way of the invading armies. 
It  predicted  the  defeat  of  the  Jews in  some  two  weeks 
and  assured  them  that  the  Arabs  could  then  return. 
Mahmoud  Abbas  (Abu  Mazen)  wrote  an  article  in  the 
official organ of the PLO, "Filastin", complaining of this, 
and  that when  the Arab armies lost,  the  refugees were 
imprisoned  in  camps  in  the  neighboring  Arab  states 
[35].  Hazam  Nusseibeh,  who  worked  for  the  Palestine39
Broadcasting  Service  in  1948,  admitted  being  told  by 
Hussein  Khalidi,  a  Palestinian  Arab leader,  to  fabricate 
the atrocity claims. Abu Mahmud, a Deir Yassin resident 
in  1948  told  Khalidi  "there  was  no  rape,"  but  Khalidi 
replied,  "We  have  to  say  this,  so  the  Arab  armies  will 
come  to  liberate  Palestine  from  the  Jews."  Nusseibeh 
told  the  BBC  50  years  later,  "This  was  our  biggest 
mistake. We did not realize how our people would react. 
As  soon  as  they  heard  that  women  had  been  raped  at 
Deir  Yassin,  Palestinians  fled  in  terror."  [36] This 
massacre rumor was also a major contributing factor in 
the  exodus  of  Arabs  from  Palestine.  Those  who  fled 
were  not invited  back  by  the  Jews who won. No  peace
treaty  was  signed  until  many  years  later  and  the  Jews 
did not want to have a Fifth Column in their midst. The 
treaties that were signed with Egypt did not reestablish 
normal  relations.  It  has  been  a  cold  peace.  The  peace 
with Jordan has perhaps been a little better.
In  the  1948 War  the  Jews  weren't  100%  successful  in
repelling  the invasion  of  the  surrounding  Arab  armies. 
Jordan,  at  the  time,  had  for  its  armed  forces  The  Arab 
Legion,  supplied  by  the  British  and  led  by  British 
Officers.  At  the  same  time  the  Jews were  subject  to  an 
arms  embargo.  The  Arab  Legion  was  therefore 
successful  in  invading  westward  from  Jordan,  to  and 
including  East  Jerusalem.  The  Egyptian  forces  moved 
north  and  got  as  far  as  the  Gaza  strip.  Under 
International Law this territory, having been won in an 
aggressive war, the capture of this land did not gain the 40
invaders  the  political  rights  to  it.  Only  Britain  and 
Pakistan recognized Jordan as holding sovereignty over 
it.
Israeli  liberation  of  Judea,  Samaria  and  East 
Jerusalem
In 1967,  once again Arabs  threatened  to annihilate the 
Jews. Egypt blocked Israeli shipping through the Straits 
of Tiran and massed tanks and troops on its border with 
Israel.  It  ordered  the  UN  buffer  force,  established  in 
1956,  to  leave  and  the  UN  buffer  forces  left  without 
even  seeking  UN  approval.  Nasser  threatened 
annihilation  of  the  Jews  or  driving  them  into  the  sea. 
Israel struck back at Egypt but even after being shelled 
by  Jordanian  artillery,  sent  a  note  to  King  of  Jordan 
saying that if they stopped the shelling they need not be 
a part of the war. Jordan declined and its army in Judea, 
Samaria  and East  Jerusalem  was  driven  back  to  the 
Jordan River by the Jews.
CONCLUSION
The  Mandate  system  was  designed  to  help  states  that 
had been subject  to Ottoman occupation  for 400 years, 
to  become  independent  after  they  learned  democratic 
principles, formed political parties and were able to self 
govern. An exception was the Mandate for Israel where 
the Jewish People who had been driven out of Palestine 
and dispersed by the Romans, were recognized by  first 41
the  British,  next  the  Allied  Principal  War  Powers,  and 
finally,  the  members  of  the  League  of  Nations  as  the 
owners  of  the  political  rights because  of  their  historic 
association with Palestine but initially were to be solely 
a  cestui  que  trust with  regard  to  Palestine’s  political 
rights. There, the tacit standard for ending the Mandate 
by the vesting of the trust res was to be the attainment 
of a Jewish population majority in the area they were to 
govern and their capability to exercise sovereignty. 
Although  now  people  point  to  the  designation  “Jewish 
National  Home”  to  bolster  their  argument  that  the 
British  Balfour  Policy  was  never  intended  to  create  a 
state,  there  was  little  doubt  in  the  British  newspapers 
when  the Balfour Declaration was published.  “That  the 
Declaration paved  the way  for a  Jewish State seems  to, 
judging from the press, to have been taken for granted.  
The headlines in  the London newspapers – ‘A state  for 
the  Jews’  (Daily Express) – ‘Palestine  for  the  Jews’  (The 
Times, Morning Post, Daily News).   The Spectator wrote 
of ‘the proposal  for  the establishment of a  Jewish State 
in  Palestine.’    The  Manchester  Guardian saw  the 
Declaration as leading to ‘the ultimate establishment of 
a  Jewish State.’ The Observer wrote: ‘It is no idle dream 
that  by  the  close  of  another  generation  the  new  Zion 
may become a state.’ Leonard Stein at 562, 63   [42]
Before enacting the Partition Resolution of 1947, the UN 
in  effect  found  the  Jews  were  capable  of  exercising
sovereignty.  The  resolution  itself  became only  a  failed 42
recommendation  when  rejected  by  the  Arabs  and  the 
partition resolution had no continuing  force and effect. 
When  the  trustee,  Britain,  abandoned  its  trust  in  May, 
1948,  the cestui que trust, World  Jewry, was  the logical 
entity  to  get  legal  dominion  of  the  political  rights  that 
theretofore had been held in trust. Had the UN thought 
the  Jews  were  still  incapable  of  the  exercise  of 
sovereignty,  in  1948  they  would  have  appointed 
another  trustee.  In  any  event,  by  1948,  coincidentally 
the  Jews  had  attained  a  majority  of  the  population  of 
Palestine,  at  least  within the  area  of  Palestine  west  of 
the Jordan within the Armistice line where they were to 
rule.
In  doing  my  research  I  learned  of  Woodrow  Wilson’s 
stand  on  the  natural law  concept  of  self‐determination 
of peoples and wondered how he would have evaluated
giving the Jewish People, a small minority in Palestine at 
the  time of  the Paris  Peace  Talks in  1919,  the  political 
rights  to  that  territory.  In doing my research  I learned 
that Lord Balfour had the same doubts
.  
“When  Balfour  met  Brandeis  in  Paris  in  June  1919,  he 
remarked  .  .  .  .  that  Palestine  represented  a  unique 
situation.    We  are  dealing  not  with  the  wishes  of  an 
existing  community  but  are  consciously  seeking  to  re‐
constitute a new community and definitely building  for 
a numerical majority in the future’ . He had, he went on, 
great  difficulty  in  seeing  how  President  Wilson  could 
reconcile his adherence to Zionism with the doctrine of 43
self‐determination,  to  which  Brandeis  replied  that  ‘the 
whole conception of Zionism as a Jewish homeland was
a  definite  building  up  for  the  future  as  the  means  of 
dealing with a world problem and not merely with  the 
disposition of an existing community. ‘ Balfour gave the 
argument a slightly different  turn at his interview with 
Meinertzhagen a few weeks later. ‘ [Meinertzhagen was 
also  very  pro‐Zionist.]  He  agreed  .  .  .  in  principle, 
Meinertzhagen wrote in his diary (30 July 1919), in the 
principle  of  self‐determination,  but  it  could  not  be 
indiscriminately  applied  to  the  whole  world,  and 
Palestine  was  a  case  in  point  .  .  .  In  any  Palestinian 
plebiscite  the  Jews  of  the  world  must  be  consulted  in 
which case he sincerely believed that an overwhelming 
majority  would  declare  for  Zionism  under  a  British 
mandate.’  Leonard Stein at p. 649
Leopold Amery, one of the Secretaries to the British 
War Cabinet of 1917‐1918 testified under oath to the 
Anglo‐American Committee of Inquiry in January, 1946 
from his personal knowledge  [Tr. 1/30/46, p 112] that:
1. He believed that the Jewish National Home was an 
experiment to determine whether there would 
eventually be a Jewish majority over the whole of 
Palestine.
2. He believed that the territory for which political 
rights were to be recognized was intended to 
include all of Palestine both east and west of the 
Jordan River.44
3. He had always assumed that the particular
reference to not infringing the civil or
religious liberties of Arab population was not
so much a safeguard against the British
Government infringing those liberties . . ., but a
Jewish state infringing those liberties. Therefore,
at the time that possibility of a Jewish majority
over the whole of the larger Palestine was, he
thought envisaged.
4. The phrase “the establishment in Palestine of a
National Home for the Jewish people” was
intended and understood by all concerned to
mean at the time of the Balfour Declaration that
Palestine would ultimately become a “Jewish
Commonwealth” or a “Jewish State”, if only Jews
came and settled there in sufficient numbers.
5. Recalled that Lloyd-George had testified earlier
[likely in 1939 at the time of the 1939 White
Paper]:
“...There could be no doubt as to what the
Cabinet then had in mind. It was not their idea
that a Jewish State should be set up immediately
by the Peace Treaty…. On the other hand, it was
contemplated that when the time arrived for
according representative institutions to Palestine,
if the Jews had meanwhile responded to the
opportunity afforded them … and had become a
definite majority of the inhabitants, then Palestine45
would thus become a Jewish
Commonwealth. The notion that the Jews should
be a permanent minority never entered into the
heads of anyone engaged in framing the
policy. That would have been regarded as unjust,
and as a fraud on the people to whom we were
appealing.”
 Presenting in 1946 the Arab Case Against a
Jewish State in Palestine, Albert Hourani described
his understanding of what was being considered:
“. ‘ ‘ speaking as a member of the Arab Office—and I 
believe as the last witness who will appear on the Arab 
side—I think it is right to emphasize, without 
elaborating what needs no further elaboration, the 
unalterable opposition of the Arab nation to the attempt 
to impose a Jewish State upon it.  This opposition is 
based upon the unwavering conviction of unshakeable 
rights and a conviction of the injustice of forcing a long‐
settled population to accept immigrants without its
consent being asked and against its known and 
expressed will; the injustice of turning a majority into a 
minority in its own country; the injustice of withholding 
self‐government until the Zionists are in the majority 
and able to profit by it.  P. 80 [43]
The late Professor Julius Stone was recognised as one of 
the twentieth century's leading authorities on the 
International law.  His “Israel and Palestine, Assault on 46
the Law of Nations” which appeared in 1980, presented 
a detailed analysis of the central principles of 
international law governing the issues raised by the 
Arab‐Israel conflict.”  Building on principles of 
International Law, he  showed that the Jewish 
settlements were not illegal.  Based on that opinion the 
US Department of State changed the view it had 
provided President Carter.  But Stone’s view did not 
take into account the principles of equity jurisprudence 
made applicable by Article 22 referred to in the 
preamble of the Palestine Mandate.  [44] He does point 
out that “Not only does Jordan lack any legal title to the 
territories concerned, but the [Geneva]  Convention 
itself does not by its terms apply to these territories. For, 
under Article 2, the [4th Geneva ] Convention applies "to 
cases of … occupation of the territory of a High 
Contracting Party, by another such Party". Insofar as the 
West Bank at present held by Israel does not belong to 
any other State, the Convention would not seem to 
apply to it at all.” He doesn’t point out that in fact it 
belongs to the Jewish People as does the State of Israel 
that is not “another party” so that the correct 
characterization is not only  “occupied” as in military 
occupation.    Rather since “occupied”carries  the 
pejorative meaning of belligerent occupation, a better 
descriptive would be “liberated.”
Politics and the Jewish political rights to Palestine47
Under  the  left  wing  Labour  government,  Israel  has 
never  directly  made  a  claim  under  the  political  or 
national  rights  that  its  principal,  World  Jewry,  had 
under International Law that had been recognized, first 
by the Principal War Powers, and then by most   states. 
Even  with  the  change  of  Paragraph  25  suspending  the
right  to settle East Palestine,  there remained  for World 
Jewry a  right  to Palestine west  of  the  Jordan approved 
by the 51 countries in the League of Nations and by the 
US,  who  had  declined  membership  — a  total  of  52 
countries.  But  the  thrust  of  the  Labour  Government 
claim was not the San Remo Agreement but under facts 
occurring  in  1948  and  thereafter.  The  Israeli 
Government  said  that  Jordan's  aggression  in  1948 
resulted  in  Jordan  never  obtaining  sovereignty  over 
Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem. So when in 1967 in a 
defensive war, it drove the Jordanians out of that area, it 
was thereafter not engaged in a belligerent occupation. 
Jordan was not a legitimate sovereign but was illegally 
occupying  an  area  that  was  disputed  and in  which  the 
Jews  had  the  better  claim.  The  Government  of  Israel 
never  directly made  the  claim  based  on  the  competing 
Arab  and  Jewish  claims  made  at  the  Paris  Peace  talks 
and the disposition of them in the Treaty of Sevres, the 
San Remo Resolution and  the Mandate  for Palestine.  It 
only hinted at it.
Now,  Douglas  Feith,  Jacques  Gauthier,  Howard  Grief,
Salomon  Benzimra,  Cynthia  Wallace,  former  Israel 
Supreme  Court  Justice  Levy  and  his  two  distinguished 
colleagues,  Alan  Baker,  Tshia  Shapira, the  late  Julius 48
Stone  and  I  are  directly  making  that  claim.  By  now  it 
should be perfectly clear that the claim is not based on 
the UN  General  Assembly  partition  resolution  of  1947, 
nor  is  it  based  only  on  facts  occurring  in  1948  and
thereafter.  It is  based  on  facts  commencing as early as 
1917 when the British adopted its Balfour policy and it 
became  International  Law  on  the  agreement  of  the 
Principal  War  Powers  at  San  Remo  in  1920  after 
consideration of both the claims of the Arabs and that of 
the Jews to the political or national rights to Palestine. It 
was  confirmed  by  the  League's  action  on  at  least 
Palestine  West  of  the  Jordan  River  by  the  51  nations 
that were its members.  It is  based  on  the  presentation 
of  the  competing  claims  of  the  Arabs  and  Jews 
submitted  to  the  Principal  War  Powers  at  the  Paris 
Peace  Conference  and  the  adjudication  and  ruling  on
those claims at San Remo in detail in the order that was 
called the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. It is 
based  on  the  legal  doctrines  of  "acquired rights"  and 
"estoppel" that prohibits any state from denying what it 
previously  admitted  or  recognized in  a  treaty  or  other
international agreement. It is based on Article 80 of the 
UN Charter that preserves political rights that had been 
recognized  by  the  United  States  and  Principal  Allied 
Powers in the 1920s. While Chaim Weizmann and some 
of  the  Zionist Organization had been willing  to give up 
those  rights, many  had  never  agreed  to it  and  split  off 
into another organization headed by Jabotinsky.
Even  despite  accepting  the  later  loss  of  transJordan, 
Chaim Weizmann, instrumental in obtaining the Balfour 49
Declaration, was delighted with what was left. Gauthier 
has  paraphrased[37]  Weizmann's  reactions  to  the  San 
Remo  decision,  which  gave  Jews  their  rights  under 
international law: "This is the most momentous political 
event in  the  whole  history  of  the  Zionist movement,  and 
it's  no  exaggeration  to  say,  in  the  whole  history  of  our
people since the Exile."
What  importance  do  the  Arabs  place  on  the  Balfour 
Declaration? A reviewer of  "The Iron Cage: The Story of 
the  Palestinian  Struggle  for  Statehood" [38]  a  book  by 
Columbia Professor Rashid Khalidi who formerly was a 
spokesman  for  the PLO, says "Khalidi has his own set of 
external culprits, beyond the blame he is willing to accept 
for the Arabs for the nabka or catastrophe as they call it."
The  very  first  of  the  three  listed  is  "British  colonial 
masters  like  Lord  Balfour,  who  refused  to  recognize  the 
national [political] rights of non‐Jews; ..." [39]
What  then  is  the  rule  under  International  Law?  It  is 
"There  is  no  legal  claim  to  national  self‐determination 
for  Palestinian  Arabs  west  of  the  Jordan  River  other 
than  as  peaceful  citizens  in  a  democratic  structure
covering the area as a whole." [40]
Israel's Legitimacy in Law and History, note #12 supra, 
pp. 55,56.
Part II: Where There is a Tension Between the
Right of a "People" to Self-determination and
the Right of a Sovereign State to Territorial
Integrity, the Right of the State is Paramount50
The Jewish People's State — Eretz Yisrael
International Law on the question of the Jewish People's
sovereignty over Palestine between the River Jordan and the Sea
can be summed up in two parts. This following summary was
prepared by the late Eugene Rostow, an acclaimed International
Lawyer, Dean of the Yale Law School and Under Secretary for
Political Affairs in the State Department in the Lyndon Johnson
Administration. It was written in 1991, just after the OSLO
Agreement was signed.
[Part 1.] "The 1920 mandate [for Palestine] implicitly denies Arab
claims to national political rights in the area in favour of the Jews;
the mandated territory was in effect reserved to the Jewish people
for their self-determination and political development, in
acknowledgment of the historic connection of the Jewish people to
the land.
[Part 2.] There remains simply the theory that the Arab inhabitants
of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have an inherent "natural law"
claim to the area.
Neither customary international law nor the United Nations
Charter acknowledges that every group of people claiming to be a
nation has the right to a state of its own." Eugene Rostow, The
Future of Palestine, Institute for Strategic Studies, November
1993, [bracketed numbers added]
I found the foregoing summary after I had completed my own
research and had written a more detailed version. The only
difference between Rostow's view and mine is that I sprinkled a
little equity jurisprudence in mine making it a little easier to
understand. The law of trusts is incorporated in the body of equity 51
jurisprudence and helps explain Part I. The Palestine Mandate was
in effect a trust agreement in which Britain held in trust the
political rights recognized in 1920 to belong to the Jewish People.
It therefore had legal dominion over them so long as it was trustee
— see below. The Jewish people owned only a beneficial interest
in these political rights when Britain was trustee. It was not until
1948 that the World Jewry met the tacit standards for vesting of the
trust res.
They met those standards by attaining a population majority in the
defined territory (inside an Armistice boundary) that was under
their rule, and by having the capability of exercising sovereignty
by their unified control over the population inside that boundary
and control over their borders. The standards for exercising
sovereignty were restated in 1933 in the Montivideo Convention on
the Rights and Duties of States. Now that 20 years have gone by
and the "peace talks" and renunciation of violence have been
proven to be a charade, it is time to contemplate what will come
next. One alternative that hasn't been given a forum is a one lawful
Jewish majority state from the River to the Sea. But two myths
need correcting and a chimera must be dispelled. One myth is that
Jewish sovereignty had its roots in the 1947 UNGA Partition
Resolution 181 and success in battle in 1948, but does not include
Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem that were liberated in 1967. A
history lost in the sands of time shows the roots of the Jewish
People's sovereignty was actually in 1920, not 1947. It is outlined
in the San Remo Resolution -- word for word the Balfour
Declaration — and detailed in the Palestine Mandate. This
beneficial interest, awaiting a Jewish population majority in the
area to be ruled, and Jewish capability to exercise sovereignty, was
recognized by 52 states in 1922. One of those was the United
States. These political rights vested in the Jewish People in 1948
under the principles of the law of trusts without any fanfare in
fulfillment of the trust set up by the Mandate..
The second myth is that the "Palestinian People" is a real rather
than an invented "people" and that they want a right to self-52
determination under International Law. This is also not correct.
Part II corrects this myth. I wrote two articles on these questions
that were published by the Think-Israel blog under a non-exclusive
license. They are entitled
Soviet Russia, the Creators of the PLO and the Palestinian People
( http://www.think-israel.org/brand.russiatheenemy.html ).
: "Was there a Palestine Arab National Movement at the End of the
Ottoman Period?"
( http://www.think-israel.org/brand.palnationalism.html ).
The view that a single Jewish state from the Jordan River to the
Mediterranean Sea would involve giving up on a majority of
Jewish citizenry in Israel is only a chimera. Annexation of Judea
and Samaria would lower the existing Jewish population majority
from 80% to only 66% -- as found by former Ambassador Yoram
Ettinger based on a study of the Begin‐Sadat Center, but that much
only if every Arab in those territories swore fealty to the Jewish
State to obtain citizenship. He also said that the Jewish birthrate is
significantly greater than the Arab birthrate and is supplemented by
significant Jewish immigration from the diaspora. If it becomes
necessary to retake Gaza, that territory could be given internal
autonomy (like Home Rule) until the Jewish majority in the entire
area grows such that adding Gaza would not jeopardize a Jewish
population majority. Internal autonomy is much like the current
proposals of Netanyahu to the Palestinian Authority.
Palestinian Self-Determination under natural law
and International Law
In President Obama's recent trip to Israel, he told the students there
[having excluded students from outside the Green Line] that the
Palestinian People had an inalienable right to self-determination.
But he also repeated to Americans many times that if they liked
their health care policies, under ObamaCare they could keep them.
Neither is correct. The UN General Assembly made the same error 53
on Palestinian self-determination in its Resolution 3236. This
might be true under natural law, but is it the rule under
International Law?
Does every "people" have a unilateral right to self‐determination
under International Law? Not the Kurds, nor the Basques. If not,
why should the Arab people living in Palestine have that right?
One of the two major arguments the alleged "Palestinian People"
make to justify their claim is that under International Law they are
a "people" and are therefore entitled to self-determination under
International Law. In order to exercise self-determination,
according to this logic, international law gives them the right to
their own state. Of course Arabs residing in Palestine are not a
genuine "people". As noted herein they were invented in 1964 in
Moscow by the Soviet dezinformatsiya. Zahir Muhsein, a member
of the PLO Executive Board admitted in 1977, there is no such
thing as a unique "Palestinian People". He said, and we agree,
they are no different from the Arabs in surrounding countries. The
term "Palestinian People" he has admitted, is used only as a
political ploy. In 1920 there was no "Palestinian People" that made
a claim on any of the territory relinquished by the Ottoman Empire
in the Treaty of Lausanne -- only an Arab People. TheArab People
did make a claim that was rejected.
There never had been a "Palestinian" language, never a
"Palestinian" nation ruling themselves from a capital in Palestine,
never a "Palestinian" coinage. That is because a "Palestinian
People" didn't exist then any more than it does now. Even if they
were now a genuine people, they have no unilateral right under
international law, to become a state with territory taken from a
preexisting state. 54
But before we examine the basis for any current claim of a
genuine "people" let us look at the claim for statehood for the
Jewish People based on the right of the Jewish People to selfdetermination
as it looked to the Allied Principal Powers who
considered it in 1920.
According to the late Julius Stone, the widely acclaimed
Australian international lawyer, "That the provision for a Jewish
national home in Palestine was an application of the principle of
self-determination is manifest from the earliest seminal beginning
of the principle. The Enquiry Commission, established by
President Wilson in order to draft a map of the world based on the
Fourteen Points, affirmed the right of the Jewish people that
Palestine should become a Jewish State clearly on this ground.
Palestine, the Commission said, was 'the cradle and home of their
vital race', 'the basis of the Jewish spiritual contribution', and the
Jews were 'the only people whose only home was in Palestine'…"
[44]
In any event, we show below that even if the Arab people currently
residing in Palestine were a genuine "people", they would have no
right under international law to secede from the territory of a pre
existing state.
Many believe that Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points speech in
1918 was the first mention of a right of self--‐ determination of a
people since the time of John Locke. But Woodrow Wilson's
Fourteen Points speech focused on three colonies of Turkey, 55
namely Syria, Mesopotamia and Palestine. It was aimed at their
decolonization. It was not meant to deal with open ended
secession. Only 53 years before, the United States had suffered
combat casualties of 215,000 and total casualties of 625,000 in the
American Civil War in denying to the Southern Confederacy the
right of secession. The American Revolutionary War, on the other
hand, was a war to obtain American self--‐determination by
decolonization. So American history itself supports selfdetermination
obtained by decolonization but not when sought by
secession where the territorial integrity of a sovereign state is at
issue.
Territorial integrity of the sovereign state had been the mainstay of
the new world order established after the Peace of Westphalia in
1648. It is considered inviolable. Under the current rule of
International Law "Without the consent of the existing state, the
international community will not recognize secessionist territories
as sovereign and independent States.* * * There is no general right
of secession in international law. The principle of sovereign
equality of States includes the recognition that the territorial
integrity of the State is 'inviolable'." Wheatley, Democracy,
Minorities and International Law. [emphasis added] And there is
an existing Jewish People's state whether or not the Government of
Israel adopts the Levy Report and annexes Judea and Samaria -as I
discuss below.
Franklin Roosevelt's and Winston Churchill's wartime discussion
of the subject of political self‐determination, framed on a battleship
in the Atlantic Ocean appeared to be open ended. It was stated as
natural law in the 1941 "Atlantic Charter." But when the right of
self-determination is open ended, there will be a tension between
that right of self-determination of "peoples" with the right of
territorial integrity of sovereign states except when the right of
self-determination of peoples can be met by a decolonization. A
decolonization can be carried out without affecting the boundaries 56
of a state.
The first evolution of this natural law on the "god given"
inalienable right of self- determination into International Law was
its mention in the UN Charter adopted in June, 1945 in Article 1
Section 2 provides as one purpose: "To develop friendly relations
among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights
and self-determination of peoples..." But Article 2 (1) preserved
the territorial integrity of the sovereign state: "The [UN]
Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of
all its Members."
The next mention of the right of self-determination clearly focused
on decolonization. Declaration on the Granting of Independence to
Colonial Countries and Peoples Adopted by General Assembly
resolution 1514 of 14 December 1960 provided "2. All peoples
have the right to self-determination. . . ."
The next two International Conventions were not clearly focused
on decolonization but did certainly retain the rights of territorial
integrity of the sovereign state. These were enacted in 1966 to
become effective in 1976. They were The International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, and The International Covenant on
Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights Article 1.1. in each,
provides: "All peoples have the right of self-determination." But
each covenant also reserves the territorial integrity of the sovereign
state. Article 1.3. of each provides: "The States Parties to the
present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the
administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall
promote the realization of the right of self‐determination, and shall
respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter
of the United Nations. [emphasis added] The Charter requires
sovereign equality and hence the inviolability of territorial
integrity.57
In 1970, the UN General Assembly spoke again on selfdetermination
in the Declaration On Principles Of International
Law Concerning Friendly Relations And Co-Operation Among
States In Accordance With The Charter Of The United Nations.
This provided: "By virtue of the principle of equal rights and selfdetermination
of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United
Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without
external interference, their political status . . ." But it also said: "
Every State shall refrain from any action aimed at the partial or
total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of any
other State or country." [emphasis added] The most serious
problem facing Israel today is the split in unity of its people. That
split is being fostered by the current action of the United States on
the question of Arab self-determination in Palestine west of the
Jordan River.
Under International Law, the clear rule is that International Law
supports the self-determination of a "people" when it can be
attained without affecting the boundary of a sovereign state as is
the case in a decolonization. Political scientists, philosophers and
those in the discipline of public administration have been
suggesting that the right of self-determination should be available
unilaterally even under secession. The theory attracting the most
followers appears to be that of Allen Buchanan a philosopher at the
University of Wisconsin. He would preserve the strong priority of
territorial integrity of sovereign states over the right of a people to
self-determination but permit secession only as a remedy of last
resort for a "people" when a majority in a state is badly oppressing
a minority with the threat of genocide or cultural extinction. See:
Buchanan, The International Institutional Dimension of Secession
in Lehning, Theories of Secession at pp. 241-247, justifying the
need for a priority for territorial integrity. Other non-lawyers would
not even require that an entire "people" want to secede but would
permit it for any cohesive group nor would they require it to be a
last resort. They do require that it be fair to the minority in the 58
territory removed as well as not removing anything vital to the
continued existence of those in the remaining territory.
How do these principles apply to the Arab‐Israeli
conflict?
First, that conflict is res judicata under International Law and has
been since 1920. In 1919 the Arab and Jewish People brought to
the Paris Peace Talks their competing claims for Palestine. King
Hussein, the initial representative of the Arab People, also claimed
Syria (now Syria and Lebanon) and Mesopotamia (now called
Iraq). The World Zionist Organization sought only Palestine,
asking only in effect for what the British Balfour Declaration
policy had promised them. That was recognition initially of an
equitable interest in the political rights to Palestine but when the
Jews attained a population majority in the area to be governed and
had the capability of exercising sovereignty, it was the intention to
have the rights vest so they could reconstitute a Jewish
Commonwealth. Until that time the British as trustees or
mandatory, were to have legal dominion over these rights with the
authority in the mandate or trust agreement of legislation,
administration and adjudication. That was a precaution taken to
avoid an antidemocratic government according to a memo
(9/17/1917) of the British Foreign Office written by Arnold
Toynbee and Lewis Namier. The same intention was noted in the
briefing documents the American diplomats carried with them to
the Paris Peace Talks. That the mandate was simply a trust
agreement was early recognized by a British barrister in 1921, Lee,
The Mandate for Mesopotamia and the Principle of Trusteeship in
English Law, (1921) League of Nations Union, Forgotten Books
Critical Reprint Series (2012). The International Court of Justice
later followed the same view in its decision on Namibia "Legal
Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa 59
in Namibia (South‐West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council
Resolution 276 (1970) Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971" some 50
years later.
The mandatory or trustee was to facilitate Jewish immigration. It
was expected that Jewish immigration from the diaspora would
take a long time to effect a majority Jewish population, therefore
the mandatory power was prohibited from ceding any of the land
to any foreign party in the interim. The mandatory or trustee was to
facilitate Jewish immigration.
At the Paris Peace Talks in 1919 the focus was on the European
claimants of territories in Europe but when the Allies reconvened
in San Remo in April, 1920, they recognized the Jewish People as
the owners of the political rights to Palestine due to its long history
of association with that area. On April 25th they adopted the
Balfour Declaration word for word as their decision on the
competing claims to Palestine of the Jewish People and Arab
people. They rejected a French proposal to amend the Balfour
Declaration to include "political rights" in the savings clause which
saved for the non‐Jewish communities only their "civil" and
"religious rights". The Arab then current majority inhabitants of
Syria and Mesopotamia were awarded a beneficial interest in the
political rights to those territories and eventually became
sovereigns of those states.
The Ottomans (Turkey) ceded their sovereign rights to Palestine in
the Treaty of Sevres to the Mandatory Power. That treaty was
never ratified but in the later Treaty of Lausanne, Turkey released
any claim to these territories, the disposition of which by that time
as a British Mandate, was a fait accompli. In 1922 the 52 members
of the League of Nations and the US had approved the terms of the
Palestine Mandate except for truncating the territory to the that part
of Palestine west of the Jordan River, reducing its area by about
40%.60
By 1948 the Jews had unified control and a population majority of
the area they governed within the Armistice Boundary (The Green
Line) and Britain had abdicated its responsibilities as trustee in
1948. In 1967 the Jews drove out Jordan and Egypt from the areas
they were illegally occupying based on their aggressive war in
1948. So-- do the "Palestinian People" have the unilateral right , to
secede from the Jewish People's State? The Government of Israel,
the agent of the Jewish People has so far not asserted sovereignty
over the territories of Judea and Samaria. This was likely because
the lawyers under the former labor government had held the Jews
held the land liberated in 1967 in "belligerent occupation". But
they were mistaken. That is because a belligerent occupier is one
who has captured the land from a legitimate sovereign. That is
assumed in Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Convention: "Art. 43.
The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the
hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his
power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and
safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in
force in the country."
Jordan never gained sovereignty over any land west of the Jordan
River because it had captured it in an aggressive war. No Arab
state recognized Jordan as the sovereign of this territory. In the
whole world only two states recognized Jordan as sovereign over
territory in the West Bank because to do so would violate
International Law of long standing custom as well as the UN
Charter.
Eretz Yisrael, the Jewish People's Sovereign State
The Government of Israel, the agent of World Jewry has asserted
sovereignty over East Jerusalem but not over Judea and Samaria.
But those areas also meet the tacit test of the Mandate for vesting 61
of a legal interest in the political rights to those territories. Israel
has already asserted its sovereignty over East Jerusalem. And
whether the Government of Israel asserts sovereignty or not, 1, The
Jewish People have control over Judea and Samaria subject only to
the OSLO agreement — an agreement that neither Israel nor its
principal need continue to observe because of its material breach
by the Arabs, and 2. The Government of Isreal has asserted
sovereignty over East Jerusalem that the so called Palestinians
claim. That means that the Israel territorial boundaries would have
to be redrawn to accommodate the territory the Palestinian
Authority demands.
Russia's Role
Since 1950 the Soviet Union has sought domination of the Middle
East as a stepping stone to hegemony over Western Europe
according to the late Eugene Rostow, Dean of the Yale Law School
and Professor of International Law in Palestinian SelfDetermination:
Possible Futures for the Unallocated Territories of
the Palestine Mandate (1980)
"For nearly thirty turbulent years, the Soviet Union has sought
control of this geo‐political nerve center in order to bring Western
Europe into its sphere. Even if Soviet ambitions were confined to
Europe, Soviet hegemony in the Middle East would profoundly
change the world balance of power. But Soviet control of the
Middle East would lead inevitably to further accretions of Soviet
power if China, Japan, and many smaller and more vulnerable
countries should conclude that the United States had lost the will
or the capacity to defend its vital interests, . . ."62
* * *
"The exploitation of Arab hostility to the Balfour Declaration, the
Palestine Mandate, and the existence of Israel has been a major
weapon in the Soviet campaign to dominate the Middle East." * *
* ". . .the Soviet Union invited Arafat to Moscow, supported his
appearance before the United Nations in November, 1974, and
increased its pressure for General Assembly resolutions supporting
claims of self-determination for the Palestinian Arabs and
denouncing Zionism as "racism'"
Even if philosopher Allen Buchanan's last resort theory instead of
International Law were to be applied, the only evidence of the
peoplehood of the so called Palestinian People and their claim to a
desire for self-determination can be found in the preamble of the
1964 Charter of the PLO drafted in Moscow and corroborated only
by the first 422 members of the Palestinian National Council, each
hand‐picked by the KGB. In WWI the Palestininan Arabs were
offered self‐government if they fought on the side of the Allies --
they didn't; some fought for the Ottomans. In 1947 Count Folke
Bernadotte found the Palestinian Arabs were not interested in
nationalism and never had been. And in 1973 Zahir Muhsein, a
member of the Executive Board of the PLO admitted to a Dutch
newspaper that there was no Palestinian "People" -- it was only a
political ploy and that once the Jews were annihilated, the PLO
would merge with Jordan. The circumstances surrounding the
drafting of the 1964 PLO Charter and its corroboration we have
from the personal knowledge of Major‐General Ion Pacepa, the
highest ranking defector from the Soviet bloc during the Cold War.
Even if they were a real People, the Palestinians in the Jewish
People's State are not threatened with genocide nor cultural
extinction. Each year the Palestinian population grows larger.
Arabic is a second official language of Israel. The Arabs control
their own schools and use them to incite against the Jews.63
If the no‐priority-for-Sovereign‐State‐territorial-integrity theory
were to be applied, what of the plight of the minority in the
territory to be removed, and the plight of the majority of those
remaining which those theorists say must be fair? The loss of the
Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem would mean the loss to the
Jewish People 1. of defensible borders, 2, their cultural heritage
including the Western Wall of the Temple Mount, and 3. the civil
rights of those in the territory removed as the Arabs are clear that
all Jews would be expelled from the territory removed from the
Jewish People's state.
Further facts and law on the above are available in Benzimra, The
Jewish People's Rights to Israel under International Law,
published by Amazon on Kindle in 2011 and Part I of the present
paper.
Vietnam Redux
Of the two biggest threats to Israel, one is a nuclear Iran. The other
is the split in the unity of the Jewish People in Israel and the
diaspora over Judea and Samaria.
It was Brezhnev who pushed Arafat to drop the slogan that the
PLO was going to annihilate the Jews or push them into the sea,
and instead claim they were liberating the Palestinian People; to
pretend to renounce violence and pretend to seek peace. The
Vietnamese General Giap also counseled him to do this to split the
unity of the American people — it had worked so well for North
Vietnam.
(http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=46)
When Netanyahu approves the Levy Report and asserts Jewish
sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, the question of statehood for 64
the so called Palestinian People becomes an internal matter of the
sovereign state of Israel as well as the Jewish People's state, Eretz
Yisrael, and the UN requires that other states not disrupt that unity.
" Every State shall refrain from any action aimed at the partial or
total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of any
other State or country." Declaration On Principles Of Operation
Among States In Accordance With The Charter Of The United
Nations (1970)

END NOTES
1. Levy Report, English Translation, 
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2012/07/english‐
translation‐of‐ legal‐
arguments.html?goback=%2Egde_3188536_member_1
34228375
2. Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49, 
http://www.refworld.org/cgi‐
bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?docid=3ae6b36d2
3. San Remo Resolution, 
http://www.cfr.org/israel/san‐remo‐
resolution/p15248
4. Balfour Declaration, 
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/E210CA73E38
D9E1D052565FA00705C61
5. British Mandate for Palestine, (1922)
See Hertz, "Mandate for Palestine," Appendix A, 
http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/mandate_for_p
alestine/mandate_for_palestine.htm or 
http://www.think‐israel.org/hertz.palestinemandate‐65
html.html. Both versions include maps and additional
material.
6. Sovereignty Over the Old City of Jerusalem; A Study of 
the Historical, Religious, Political and Legal Aspects of the 
Question of the Old City, submitted by Dr. Jacques 
Gauthier as a thesis to the University of Geneva in 2007.
7. Howard Grief, Legal Foundations and Boundaries of 
Israel under International Law
8. Salomon Benzimra, The Jewish Peoples' Rights to the 
Land of Israel
9. Wallace Brand, op ed, Part 1: 
http://www.irsraelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.
aspx/11408. Part 2: 
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.a
spx/11412.
10. Cynthia Wallace, "Foundations of the International 
Legal Rights of the Jewish People and the State of Israel 
and the Implications for the Proposed New Palestinian 
State."
11. 
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2012/07/english‐
translation‐of‐legal‐
arguments.html?goback=%2Egde_3188536_member_1
34228375
12. Israel's Legitimacy in Law and History, edited by 
Edward M. Siegel, Esq., Center for Near East Policy
Research, New York (1993). pp 113.
13."Israel's Legal Right to Samaria," 
 http://shomroncentral.blogspot.com/p/5‐legal‐rights‐
to‐samaria.html66
14. Douglas Feith, "A Mandate for Palestine," 
http://www.zionismontheweb.org/middle_east/Israel
/Israel_and_palestine_mandate_for_israel.htm. Elliott A. 
Green, "International Law regarding the State of Israel 
and Jerusalem," Think‐Israel.org,  http://www.think‐
israel.org/green.sanremo.html
15a.  Israel and Palestine: Assault on the Law of Nations 
(1981) Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and 
London 
http://www.aijac.org.au/news/article/international‐
law‐and‐the‐arab‐israel‐conflict#2
15b. Theodor Meron legal opinion: 
 http://www.soas.ac.uk/lawpeacemideast/resources/fil
e48485.pdf
16. Talia Sasson report:  http://rt.com/news/sasson‐
israel‐settlement‐money‐089/
17. 
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2012/07/english‐
translation‐of‐legal‐
arguments.html?goback=%2Egde_3188536_member_1
34228375
18. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
19. Alan Baker, "The Settlements Issue: Distorting the 
Geneva Convention and the Oslo Accords," 
 http://jcpa.org/article/the‐settlements‐issue‐
distorting‐the‐geneva‐convention‐and‐the‐oslo‐
accords/
20. Levy Report, English Translation, supra. Note #1.67
21. UNGA Resolution 181, 1947 Partition 
Recommendation 
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm
22.http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter
12.shtml
23.Howard Grief "Legal Rights and Title of Sovereignty of 
the Jewish People to the Land of Israel and Palestine 
under International Law" 
http://www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH‐NATIV/02‐
issue/grief‐2.htm [bracketed material added]
24. Lee, The Mandate for Mesopotamia and the Principle 
of Trusteeship in English Law, (1921) League of Nations 
Union, Forgotten Books Critical Reprint Series (2012). 
See also the International Court of Justice decision in 
the Namibia case, LEGAL CONSEQUENCES FOR STATES 
OF THE CONTINUED PRESENCE OF SOUTH AFRICA IN 
NAMIBIA (SOUTH‐WEST AFRICA) NOTWITHSTANDING 
SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 276 (1970) Advisory 
Opinion of 21 June 1971
25.http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisd
ay/big/1111.html#article
26. http://www.mideastweb.org/zionistborders.htm
27. Treaty of Sevres Article 95, 
http://www.hri.org/docs/sevres/part3.html
28 Memorandum from Lord Balfour to Lord Curzon, 
August 11, 1919, Document number 242 from: EL 
Woodward and Rohan Butler, Documents on British 
Foreign Policy, 1919‐1939. (London: HM Stationery 
Office, 1952), 340‐348.
29. Kirkbride, A Crackle of Thorns, Chapter 368
30. Friedman, Palestine: A Twice‐Promised Land, Vol. 1: 
The British, the Arabs, and Zionism, 1915‐1920. (2000)
31. Sacher, The Establishment of a Jewish State, London 
(1952), Hyperion Reprint edition, 1976
32. Benzimra, The Jewish Peoples Rights to the Land of 
Israel., note #8
33. See: "Acts of Aggression Provoked, Committed, and 
Prepared by Arab States in Concert with the Palestine 
Arab Higher Committee against the Jewish Population of 
Palestine in an Attempt to Alter by Force the Settlement 
Envisaged by the General Assembly's Resolution on the 
Future Government of Palestine," memorandum 
submitted by the Jewish Agency for Palestine to the 
United Nations Palestine Commission, Feb. 2, 1948; 
Moshe Shertok, "Letter from the Jewish Agency for 
Palestine Dated 29 March 1948, Addressed to the 
Secretary‐General Transmitting a Memorandum on Acts 
of Arab Aggression," UNSC, S/710, Apr. 5, 1948. 
 http://domino.un.org/pdfs/AAC21JA12.pdf
34. UNGA Res 181, Recommending Partition, note #21, 
supra.
35. Wall St. Journal, 
 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/du
board.php?az=view_all&address=124x352032
36.Myth and Fact 
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths3/
MFrefugees.html
37. http://jhvonline.com/jerusalem‐our‐redeemable‐
right‐jews‐hold‐legal‐sovereignty‐over‐israels‐p10173‐
96.htm69
38. The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle 
for Statehood by Rashid Khalidi (Oct 15, 2006) 
[bracketed material added]
39. "Assessing the Role Palestinians Have Played in the 
Failed Bid for Statehood," Steven Erlanger, NY Times, 
Oct. 7, 2006.
40.  Riebenfeld,  "The  Legitimacy  of Jewish  Settlement  in 
Judea,  Samaria  and  Gaza,"  in  Edward  M.  Siegel,  ed.,41. 
41.  Tulin,  Book  of  Documents  submitted  to  the  United 
Nations General Assembly Relating to the National Home 
for  the  Jewish  People,  The  Jewish  Agency,  New  York, 
1947, Tr. 1/30/46 at p. 112.   
42. Leonard Stein, The Balfour Declaration. Pp. 562, 63. 
649.
43.  Public  Hearings  Before  the  Anglo‐American 
Committee of Inquiry, Jerusalem (Palestine) March, 
1946,  Albert Hourani, The  Case Against a  Jewish State 
in  Palestine.    Statement  to  the  Anglo‐American 
Committee of Enquiry of 1946 Transcript at P. 80
44. 
http://www.aijac.org.au/news/article/international‐
law‐and‐the‐arab‐israel‐conflict

I am somewhat surprised at all the commotion regarding the U.N resolution 2334 which condemns Jewish Communities and Settlements in the West Bank aka Judea and Samaria.  It should be noted Israel regained land and rebuilt communities previously taken from it illegally via the Defensive War of 1967 when it had to defend itself from an unprovoked attack from Jordan.  If the U.N voted a resolution declaring the Vatican as Muslim territory, is anyone going to abide by it?

According to my research, the U.N. Charter only provides for the recommendation(s) of a non-binding Resolution, with no legal standing. In fact, the U.N. has absolutely no legal standing or power to enforce any Resolution(s).  Furthermore, it cannot be ignored the U.N. has recommended hundreds of Resolutions against Israel with no legal, or factual standing to support said Resolutions. There is also the U.N. Article 51 which provides for defense against attack. The U.N, and the ICJ have no appeal process and that is against every Democratic law. Their opinions and resolutions are based on false information; there is no procedure to remedy the erroneous biased decisions.

Israel is on solid legal and historical ground as far as its' territorial boundaries west of the Jordan River.  In fact, history proves Israel has both a legal and historical claim for a lot of land held by Jordan.

The World at large has for thousands of years wrongfully persecuted the Jews, confiscated and stole their assets including land. The world at large will try and push us around if we let them. It is time to put an end to such unjustified persecution. 

All the distortions of history up to and including modern day, by biased nations relying upon fictitious make-believe facts and wishful beliefs, must not be tolerated any more.  While most of the biased world continues to unjustly assail Israel, the nation of Israel contributes to the world a substantial amount of advancement and technology in all fields, including medicine, energy, water desalination, IT, and much more.

Today the Jewish State of Israel has the man-power and the resources to defend itself against most world powers. Thus, it is time for us Jews to become unified and stand up for ourselves as was done during the days of Moses, King David and King Solomon.

We are supposed to be "a stubborn nation" (Am Kshey Oref). Let us utilize our "stubborn" resolve with a strong backbone steeled with our unwavering faith. If we stand our ground without capitulations, we might encounter some obstacles and suffer some set-backs. But in the long run we will be stronger and the world at large will respect us more.

We must overcome the "victim mentality" we have too easily accepted over thousands of years. It is time for all Jews worldwide to raise our heads, and steel our resolve as a proud nation with proud people.

YJ Draiman


The U.N. a useless organization – Non-binding

In a Democratic legal system if you have decision that you think is erroneous or unjust you can appeal that decision and many times it is reversed.

U.N. opinions and or resolutions are biased, unjust, arbitrary and capricious (the same apply to the ICJ – International Court of Justice).

The U.N. has issued numerous opinions and resolutions that are biased, unsubstantiated and contrary to historical and factual evidence. This U.N. collusion with corrupt and biased countries and the issuance of egregious opinions and resolution has eroded the credibility of the U.N. beyond repair.

This has raised the ire and an outcry by many nations, politicians and institutions to de-fund the U.N. and dismantle it.

It is well known that the U.N. and the ICJ can only offer and issue a non-binding advisory recommended opinions and resolutions which carry no legal standing or affect. They can only issue a non-binding recommendation and resolution and if it is accepted by all parties, then their recommended opinion and resolution is applicable. Otherwise it has no meaning, validity, and no legal standing.

Therefore, my suggestion is stop panicking and aggrandizing these biased criminal organizations. Their recommended opinion has no meaningful value.

By reacting to and citing the recommendations of this criminal organization as having any validity, you are misleading the public that the recommended opinions by these criminal organizations might have some validity.

It is time to expose the fraud and deception by these unethical, corrupt and unjust organizations and dismantle them completely.

It will also save a substantial amount of money and resources that could be put to a better use.

YJ Draiman

 

P.S. The League of Nations was replaced by the United Nations, since the league did not accomplish its purpose. The U.N. has not accomplished its purpose for what it was created to perform ethically and honestly.

In today's society the Nations of the world can function without an organization such as the U.N.

If the Nations of the world desire to establish a new International Peace organization, it must put some very specific Charter, with a caveat, that if it is not performing unbiased, ethically, honestly and justly, with respect to each member country, it will be dismantled. 

A citizens committee might be set to monitor its functions to perform ethically, justly and unbiased, un-falsified, verified and substantiated factual unbiased opinions.

YJ Draiman

The U.N. a useless organization – Issues Non-binding resolutions with no legal standing

In a Democratic legal system if you have decision that you think is erroneous or unjust you can appeal that decision and many times it is reversed.

U.N. opinions and or resolutions are (non-binding) biased, unjust, arbitrary and capricious (the same apply to the ICJ – International Court of Justice).

The U.N. has issued numerous opinions and non-binding resolutions that are biased, unsubstantiated and contrary to historical and factual evidence. This U.N. collusion with corrupt and biased countries and the issuance of non-binding egregious opinions and resolution has eroded the credibility of the U.N. beyond repair.

This has raised the ire and an outcry by many nations, politicians and institutions to de-fund the U.N. and dismantle it.

It is well known that the U.N. and the ICJ can only offer and issue a non-binding advisory recommended opinions and resolutions which carry no legal standing or affect. They can only issue a non-binding recommendation and resolution and if it is accepted by all parties in writing, then their recommended opinion and resolution is applicable (Provided the parties abide by the terms). Otherwise it has no meaning, validity, and no legal standing.

Therefore, my suggestion is stop panicking and aggrandizing these biased criminal organizations. Their recommended non-binding opinion has no meaningful value.

By reacting to and citing the non-binding recommendations of this criminal organization as having any validity, you are misleading the public that the recommended opinions by these criminal organizations might have some validity, which it does not.

It is time to expose the fraud and deception by these unethical, corrupt and unjust organizations and dismantle them completely.

It will also save a substantial amount of money and resources that could be put to a better use.

YJ Draiman

 

P.S. The League of Nations was replaced by the United Nations, since the league did not accomplish its purpose. The U.N. has not accomplished its purpose for what it was created to perform ethically and honestly.

In today's society the Nations of the world can function without an organization such as the U.N.

If the Nations of the world desire to establish a new International Peace organization, it must put some very specific Charter, with a caveat, that if it is not performing unbiased, ethically, honestly and justly, with respect to each member country, it will be dismantled. 

A citizens committee might be set to monitor its functions to perform ethically, justly and unbiased, un-falsified, verified and substantiated factual unbiased opinions.

YJ Draiman




AFSILA - Americans for Safe Israel - Los Angeles Chapter of AFSIAFSI.ORGAFSI EVENTSafsisfv.orgPhotos AfsiLALinks/News AFSILAEvents/Israel AFSILAContact AFSI LAAFSILA ArticlesAFSI - American Friends for a Safe IsraelA7 - Arutz 7Israel BoundriesAFSI ChaptersLand of IsraelIsrael International LawMiddle East FactsJerusalem UnitedPeace in Israel