Ahmed Moor writing in the Washington Post:
The degree to which the country is a single, indivisible unit is sometimes underscored by the most mundane experiences. A Palestinian friend recently told me about being pulled over for speeding in the West Bank. The person who ticketed him was an Israeli army official.
Yes, Palestine has been colonized out of existence, and the Israeli army is busy policing traffic.
The army’s nearness to the average Palestinian extends beyond settlements. The region has few freshwater resources. In Israel, maintaining access to water is a matter of national security. The mountain aquifer underneath the West Bank’s rocky topography is one major source, and the army regularly destroys “unauthorized” wells and cisterns to secure Israeli hegemony over the scarce resource.
It was awareness that there will never be a viable Palestinian state that prompted me to work with other Harvard students to organize a one-state conference this weekend. Our work has been informed by the uncontroversial view that all people are created equal. Assessing an environment in which Israel controls the lives of 4 million people and deprives them of basic human rights, we ask whether there is an alternative: Can the one-state solution deliver equal rights to everyone?
Critics say that raising the question of equal rights in Israel/Palestine reveals our motives; we seek to destroy Israel, they say. They contend civil rights for everyone in the country will mean “the elimination of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people.”
For some, everything that happens in the Middle East is viewed through the prism of what is best for the Jewish people. But the Palestinians are people, too. Preserving “Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people” is a costly endeavor. And I regret that the cost is borne almost exclusively by Palestinians living under apartheid.
Read the entire article, "One state for Palestinians and Israelis," here.
Wow! Great op-ed, I can’t believe the WaPo printed it. Progress!
civil rights for everyone will mean the elimination of israel as the homeland of the jewish people
oh my, another shattered dream?
shit happens when a dream is based on a lie
specifically, the one about a land without a people for a people without a land
never should have been
never should have been
never should have been
and in its place?
palestine, just and free
RE: “oh my, another shattered dream?” ~ yourstruly
A LATE WINTER AFTERNOON’S MUSICAL INTERLUDE, brought to you courtesy of the makers of new Ziocaine Xtreme®: It’s guaran-damn-teed to blow your effing mind!™
Requiem For A Dream / Music composed by Clint Mansell, performed by the Kronos Quartet. / From the soundtrack for Darren Aronofsky’s second film. (VIDEO, 05:21) – link to youtube.com
P.S. Requiem for a Dream, 2000, UR, 102 minutes
A widow’s growing dependence on amphetamines and a self-help television show parallels the struggles of her heroin-addicted son and his girlfriend and friend in Darren Aronofsky’s bleak drama.
Cast: Ellen Burstyn, Jared Leto, Jennifer Connelly, Marlon Wayans, Christopher McDonald, Louise Lasser, Marcia Jean Kurtz, Janet Sarno, Keith David, Sean Gullette, Ben Shenkman
Director: Darren Aronofsky
Genres: Dramas, Independent Movies, Dramas based on a book, Independent Dramas, Dramas based on contemporary literature
This movie is: Violent, Emotional, Controversial, Dark, Gritty, Mind-bending
Netflix Availability: DVD and Blu-ray
NETFLIX LISTING – link to movies.netflix.com
REQUIEM FOR A DREAM TRAILER HD HQ – best scenes of a movie (VIDEO, 03:32) – link to youtube.com
P.P.S.
Saxon Shore, How We Conquered the Western World on Horseback [VIDEO, 03:52] – link to youtube.com
Zoë Keating, Legions (War) [VIDEO, 09:49] – link to youtube.com
We Insist, by Zoë Keating on One Cello x 16: Natoma (2005) [VIDEO, 03:47] – link to youtube.com
P.P.P.S. Pop Will Eat Itself, Ich Bin Ein Auslander (VIDEO, 04:10) – link to youtube.com
P.P.P.P.S. Threads by This Will Destroy You on This Will Destroy You, 2008 (VIDEO, 05:42) – link to youtube.com
The Europeans were prime culprits. It was easier to foist their “Jewish problem” onto the Arabs than to face up to it.
Fantastic stuff. I’m so amazed by Ahmed and all the other organizers of so many incredible events, from PennBDS to Occupy AIPAC… It’s such an exciting time to be active on this issue.
P.S. Just a small reminder — Fast Times in Palestine is free this weekend in honor of Occupy AIPAC. Please feel free to get your copy and spread the word. Thank you!
link to amazon.com
All people are not created equal in Israel, and never will be, if the Zionists have their apartheid way. No Israeli, apart from an honorable minority, can even conceive of the equality of Palestinians with themselves.
“For some, everything that happens in the Middle East is viewed through the prism of what is best for the Jewish people”
They got 60 years and they messed it up. They now have a militarist state that is more dangerous for Jews than anywhere in the Diaspora. 30% of Israeli Jewish kids are hungry. What is the point ?
What is the point is a great question. Unfortunately, most people are not asking it. They view I/P as if it is a matter of opinion like any other partisan issue. People view I/P and the ME instability in general through a veil of propaganda and lies. History is molded to take advantage of people’s religious beliefs. The 30% or so of Americans who perceive the modern militarist state of Israel as the same Israel in scripture are never going to change their perceptions no matter what truth spills over into the media.
The world is a much different place than it was prior to WWII. The idea of a state for Jewish people has made no sense at any point in modern Israel’s history. The Jewish diaspora has never been the only diaspora. Chaldeans don’t have a homeland for example.
I think that ‘the point’ was a once-held belief that Palestine was a strategic asset during the Cold War era. The Zionist lobby was controlled by fundamentalist Christians (and I would say it still is) in the beginning. They were the ones who pressured Truman to support partition. The US withdrew their support after Folke Bernadotte was assassinated. One of the primary (if not the primary) reasons for the US being first to recognize Israel was because they saw a strategic advantage over the USSR in doing so. Of course the UN and the Vatican were/are interested in the Old City and corporations were interested in the Dead Sea and natural gas fields. Only on the surface was this ever about Jewish people and the Jewish Zionists probably figured this out from the start. Hence Revisionist Zionism.
Jordan’s independence probably through a wrench into the Dead Sea thing. Lebanon and Cyprus are also arguing for the natural gas fields. Then there is the natural gas off of Gaza’s waters (probably one of the true reasons for the status quo in Gaza). The Vatican unofficially has some sort of a say over the Old City but the UN gave up. The USSR is gone. Israel makes no sense, no sense at all. The flawed Zionist view that Israel is unique and therefore must be treated by double standards is only believed by the Israelis. They see criticism otherwise as antisemitism. Examining the status quo from a rational and non-biased POV is enough to convince you that the world is run by insane people.
“what is best for the Jewish people”
And where did you get the idea that those who, through bereaucratic infighting, personal publicity, or religious charlatanism, become “Jewish leaders” have any obligation to the interests of “the Jewish people”?
Can you point me to any mechanism in Judaism which holds them to any standard of responsibility? Any mechanism by which the needs and interests of “the Jewish people” can even be known to them?
This crazy idea that “Jewish leaders” (I don’t know what else to call them) are somehow responsible to “the Jewish people” and not primarily driven by their own interests is, at it’s core anti-semitic. There is no “hive-mind” which ties Jewish people together.
I’ve long been a proponent of the one-state solution, a view that has been solidified by much MW reading. This article articulates perfectly why it is the only truly just solution to the conflict. I have always wondered, though, what they would name the one-state. It seems trivial, but I feel like it will be a point of contention when the time comes.
Not trivial, and of course I don’t know the answer. But I would point out that a geographic name like Palestine, which is the name the yishuv themselves used before 1948, is much more appropriate than a sectarian name like Israel.
You aren’t the first to wonder that shawket. It’s not trivial at all.
We discussed it here a few months ago and a few of us decided that something *relatively* neutral like “Republic of Jerusalem” or just simply “Jerusalem” would be better than it remaining Israel or reverting to Palestine. If either of those names persist the other side will feel as though they have lost. A third name takes that away. We can’t turn back the clock, whether it is several thousand years or just 64.
It (the discussion) all started here on the Hillary/Rosa Parks thread, where Taxi linked to an older comment about an experience he had in southern Lebanon talking to an old shepherd.
sumud, it was an excellent discussion and as i recall you may have missed the follow ups, two threads…actually there was meant to be a third….and fourth..i guess i dropped the ball.
link to mondoweiss.net
link to mondoweiss.net
>> I have always wondered, though, what they would name the one-state. It seems trivial, but I feel like it will be a point of contention when the time comes.
I suspect that that will be the very least of their worries should a one-state solution come to pass.
I think Krauthammer is still at WaPo, but indeed, the dam protecting the innocent population from pernicious ideas is leaking, even though various heroic little boys try to put fingers in the holes (like indefatigable Alan Derschowitz).
About 10 years ago “moral equivalence” and “even handedness” were acclaimed to by anti-Semitic ideas.
Ahmed Moor, please read:
Get some video of this conference please.
I was really disappointed in the PennBDS conference insofar as the media/social networking aspect.
Here is the (supposed) official PennBDS YouTube page:
link to youtube.com
It’s just (and sorry for being insulting) plain stupid that no one was able to record all the various speakers and present them on YouTube.
The other side does this as a STANDARD. That’s how they get their message out.
I see no excuse for this.
I’m happy and inspired by your initiative but please, for Pete’s sake, get on the ball here and put your message out on YouTube – AT LEAST!
I believe videos will be posted.
Here’s video of Ilan Pappé and audio of Ali Abunimah.
link to electronicintifada.net
Great op-ed, the way prepared by the hysterics. Whole she-bang would go unnoticed had not the hysterics called attention to it. Kinda like the protests at teh Wall in OPTs.
Best thought: “For some, everything that happens in the Middle East is viewed through the prism of what is best for the Jewish people. But the Palestinians are people, too. Preserving “Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people” is a costly endeavor. And I regret that the cost is borne almost exclusively by Palestinians living under apartheid.”
Best subject for further processing: “They contend civil rights for everyone in the country will mean “the elimination of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people.”” This idea is one which the hysterics have sometimes made — and which cannot be defended logically, democratically, ethically, etc. Take it up!!! Argue it with Hillel, AIPAC, Israelis. Call on The Dersh for comment! Go to it!
“Our work has been informed by the uncontroversial view that all people are created equal.”
That sentence should have greater prominence, rather than being in the middle of a paragraph.
But a great article.
The Wa-Po is going to get into trouble.
/The area of Mandate Palestine — that’s Israel, the West Bank and Gaza /
A lie, it also included Transjordan which is about three times the size.
no it is not.
link to palestinefacts.org
Check you facts.
link to upload.wikimedia.org
link to mondoweiss.net
also, on the frus papers link which directs to pg 216, make sure you read page 217 also. it’s very clear.
what is the point of your last link oleg. it says right on the front “relating to its application”. an application for a ‘mandate for palestine’ “to the territory known as transjordan“. by that date is was already transjordan. how does this prove it was palestine?
there’s more at the link btw, refuting the illusion Jabotinsky’s assertions had some bearing on reality, he had no role in delimiting the boundaries of Palestine.
lots more supporting links too.
/On 21 March 1921, the Foreign and Colonial office legal advisers decided to introduce Article 25 into the Palestine Mandate. It was approved by Curzon on 31 March 1921, and the revised final draft of the mandate, including the territory of Transjordan for the first time, was forwarded to the League of Nations on 22 July 1922. See Aaron S. Klieman, “Foundations of British Policy In The Arab World: The Cairo Conference of 1921″, Johns Hopkins, 1970, ISBN 0-8018-1125-2, pages 228–234/
Come on annie we are not talking about palestine an amorphic entity that never
had any legal status .
We are talking about the legal term Palestine Mandate
that included what is now known as Israel, the West Bank, Gaza
and also included Transjordan (a geographic not a legal term)
until the British decided to give it as a gift to the Hashemites.
You can argue till you are blue in the face but the facts remain.
If you are still not convinced try looking at the maps of that period.
@OlegR
Address what annie said.
Transjordan was politically autonomous. So it would be dishonest to imply it was under the mandate in the same sense as the ‘Palestinian’, Palestine.
so, according to you Transjordan was ‘a geographic’ term and Palestine Mandate was a ‘legal term’. last i heard ‘legal terms’ do not have borders. can you direct us to some document?
“and also included Transjordan (a geographic not a legal term)”
False. The Emirate of Transjordan existed prior to Britain taking over the mandate, and very much was a legal term.
“until the British decided to give it as a gift to the Hashemites.”
First, it wasn’t Britain’s to give. Second, if anyone was given a gift in the region it was the Jews, as there was no justification legal, whatsoever, for one set of Europeans given Arab land to another set of Europeans to despoil it and to torture, kill and oppress its native population, and the Zionists did. So if you’re complaining about the British giving a “gift” to anyone, then you have to start with that abomination known as “Israel.”
perhaps you are not aware: link to en.wikipedia.org
so, it looks as tho palestine was previously pledged by the british by time balfour came around anyway. did you forget about that? and it certainly doesn’t look like any promise of a jewish national home means in exclusivity, at all.
First, it wasn’t Britain’s to give.
They still did it though.
First, it wasn’t Britain’s to give.
i am a fan of judge judy, sometimes i watch it over at my mom’s house. she says if you buy stolen goods you have to go after the person who sold it to you. it doesn’t give you rights to it because you bought it from a thief. i am not calling the british thieves, i am just saying the land was already married to another bride.
Just because the British allowed it a different level of autonomy
then they did to the rest of the Mandate does not imply that it can be
seen as something external to it.It’s not.
/ it would be dishonest to imply it was under the mandate in the same sense as the ‘Palestinian’, Palestine./
I did not imply that it was a mistake/lie leaving it out of the regions
usually mentioned as part of the British Mandate in Palestine.
56% of it yes, Israel stole the rest.
/. i am not calling the british thieves, i am just saying the land was already married to another bride./
Through history the land usually belonged to whoever was able to control it,
this control was backed by brute force.It still is in most cases despite
the thin veil of civility that we acquired.
The idea that the land belongs to the native population and that the natives
have right’s by being the natives is a relatively new idea that as far as i can tell
emerged recently in the post colonial era ( i may be wrong about it so feel free to correct me)
Judging the morality or the legality of the British actions towards their colonial
conquests (or anyone else) in the early 1900 century by today’s standards
(Let’s say international law to save us time) is incorrect.
Come on annie we are not talking about palestine an amorphic entity that never had any legal status.
Of course it had a legal status. Jerusalem was the capital of an independent Mutasarrifyya/Sanjak of Kudus (aka Palestine).
The Western powers had operated their own consular courts under the terms of the capitulations in the Jerusalem (aka Palestine) jurisdiction west of the Jordan river for at least a hundred years. They called the country Palestine and its Pasha the Governor of Palestine. The territory on the east of the Jordan river was part of the Vilayet of Syria (aka Damascus). The Mandate always maintained them as separate legal jurisdictions and states too. The notion that the British gave Arabians part of Arabia is without merit. You can read more about that here:
link to mondoweiss.net
You can argue till you are blue in the face but the facts remain.
If you are still not convinced try looking at the maps of that period.
The official British maps used by the War Cabinet didn’t include Transjordan in Palestine. In any event, both districts were included in the area of Arab independence that Great Britain had pledged to respect in agreements with the Sharif of Mecca. See
Former Reference: GT 6506A
Title: Maps illustrating the Settlement of Turkey and the Arabian Peninsula.
Author: Political Intelligence Department, Foreign Office
Date 21 November 1918
Catalogue reference CAB 24/72
link to nationalarchives.gov.uk
*Former Reference: GT 6506
Title: The Settlement of Turkey and the Arablan Peninsula.
Author: Political Intelligence Department, Foreign Office
Date 21 November 1918
Catalogue reference CAB 24/72
link to nationalarchives.gov.uk
The idea that the land belongs to the native population and that the natives
have right’s by being the natives is a relatively new idea that as far as i can tell
emerged recently in the post colonial era ( i may be wrong about it so feel free to correct me)
The Fourteen Points enumerated by President Wilson included, in part, the principle that: “XII. The Turkish portion of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development”. link to wwi.lib.byu.edu
the Inter-American Reciprocal Assistance and Solidarity (Act of Chapultepec) noted that: “The American states have been incorporating in their international law, since 1890, by means of conventions, resolutions and declarations, the following principles:
a) The proscription of territorial conquest and the non-recognition of all acquisitions made by force (First International Conference of American States, 1890); link to avalon.law.yale.edu
The principle was definitely adopted as a norm of international law by the US Government and the League of Nations as part of the Stimson Doctrine and the findings of the Lytton Commission regarding the Mukden Incident and Japan’s seizure of Manchuria.
That norm was reflected in the UN Charter adopted on 26 June 1945. For example, the ICJ noted:
85. The Court first recalls that, pursuant to Article 2, paragraph 4, of
the United Nations Charter:
“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of’any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
On 24 October 1970, the General Assembly adopted resolution 2625
(XXV), entitled “Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning
Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States” [in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations] (hereinafter “resolution 2625 (XXV)”), in which it emphasized that “No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.” As the Court stated in its Judgment in the case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), the principles as to the use of force incorporated in the Charter reflect customary international law (see I. C. J. Reports 1986, pp. 98-101, paras. 187- 190); the same is true of its corollary entailing the illegality of territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force. See link to icj-cij.org
Said you: “Judging the morality or the legality of the British actions towards their colonial conquests (or anyone else) in the early 1900 century by today’s standards (Let’s say international law to save us time) is incorrect.”
Palestine wasn’t a British colony. The UK High Court of Justice ruled that Palestine was a separate foreign state when Mr Ketter [aka Kletter] was arrested and deported to Palestine: In any event, by reason of such Palestinian naturalization, he secured a passport to visit England to carry on his legal studies. The plaintiff’s pursuit of citizenship led him into difficulty there with the British Government, when he unsuccessfully contended that he was a British subject, and not an alien, and therefore was not required to leave England pursuant to an order made respecting him as a Palestinian citizen. This case, King v. Ketter is reported in Law Reports, 1 King’s Bench Division, 1940, at page 787. See the cite in Kletter v Dulles. link to dc.findacase.com
In any event, I’ve been citing examples of contemporary international law from the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Just because the British allowed it a different level of autonomy
then they did to the rest of the Mandate does not imply that it can be
seen as something external to it.It’s not.
Correction, the League of Nations exempted Transjordan from the terms of the Palestine Mandate, not Great Britain. The League was acting in accordance with the terms of a Memorandum that was annexed to the Council resolution that approved the joint “A” mandates for Palestine and Transjordan. See the full text here link to archive.org
According to the terms of the San Remo resolution, Palestine was to have whatever boundaries the Allied Powers chose to confer upon it and none of the draft mandate instruments were valid until they were submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for approval. link to cfr.org
The Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) contains the official documentary record of major foreign policy decisions taken by the post-World War I Peace Conferences. The Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, The Paris Peace Conference, 1919 Volume XIII, Annotations to the treaty of peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany, signed at Versailles, June 28, 1919 explains:
“The mandates under which the various territories have been administered were submitted by the mandatory governments to the Council of the League of Nations in accordance with paragraph 8 of article 22. The terms were reviewed by the Council, in some cases revised on its recommendation, and finally approved by it. The following table gives the pertinent data for each territory:
“A” Mandates
*Palestine
*Trans-Jordan
*Syria and Lebanon’
link to digicoll.library.wisc.edu
So Transjordan was always governed as a separate state under the terms of a separate international instrument. The fact that it was a separate foreign state for the purposes of article 15 of the Palestine Citizenship Order and the Palestine mandate was affirmed by the High Court of Justice of Palestine. See Hersh Lauterpacht (editor), “States as international persons”, in “International Law Reports”, Cambridge University Press, 1994, page 17
“Judging the morality … of the British actions towards their colonial
conquests (or anyone else) in the early 1900 century by today’s standards
… is incorrect.”
People in the early 1900 century might have believed their actions were moral, but that does not mean their actions were moral.
Nazis in the early 1940s might have believed their actions were moral, but that does not mean their actions were moral.
We should judge their actions by our standards. Our judgements, or our standards, might be mistaken, but we have to to make them.
/According to the terms of the San Remo resolution, Palestine was to have whatever boundaries the Allied Powers chose to confer upon it and none of the draft mandate instruments were valid until they were submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for approval./
That makes it sound that the League of Nations was a rubber stamp for
the resolutions of the Allied Powers (in this case UK / France)
does it not?
In any case thank you for the references they are interesting.
/Nazis in the early 1940s might have believed their actions were moral, but that does not mean their actions were moral./
Nazis action were considered immoral by the standards of the 1940′s as well.
/We should judge their actions by our standards. Our judgements, or our standards, might be mistaken, but we have to to make them./
Judging yes but drawing political conclusions from that relevant to the current day,would make the US an illegally born colonial entity.So it would UK,
and all other former colonial powers.
/Of course it had a legal status. Jerusalem was the capital of an independent Mutasarrifyya/Sanjak of Kudus (aka Palestine)./
Legal status yes, autonomous to a large degree, sure
but saying it was independent in any way resembling our ideas of
independence i think is wrong.(And certainly nothing to do with
Arab independence)
By that logic you can say that PA is an independent state.
To: Hostage
Interesting documents btw
you can actually see how they toyed with various ideas as to how they
should divide the assets of the Ottomans.
Did a piss poor job at it in the end.
I wounder though could they have done any better.
“I wounder though could they have done any better.”
They could have started by not giving Arab land to a bunch of European Jews, for one.
“Just because the British allowed it a different level of autonomy
then they did to the rest of the Mandate does not imply that it can be
seen as something external to it.It’s not.”
All too often rather dull-witted trolls attempt to argue that Transjordan was the area in (and here they interchangably use “Palestine” “the Mandate for Palestine” or “Mandate Palestine”) which the Arab were to control and that, therefore, everything in Palestine should rightly belong to the Jews. Sure, the argument is evil, stupid, unhistorial and nonsensical, but Zios like you make it all the time.
Is there any other reason for you to insist on linking Jordan to the Mandate?
“Nazis action were considered immoral by the standards of the 1940′s as well.”
Not to the Nazis. They thought they were committing the most moral act they could conceive of, by ridding the world of the Jews.
Which means that, yes, it is proper for modern people to judge the actions of people by our morality, whether the subject of the judgment would have agreed with that morality or not. That’s the essence of what morality is. Indeed, if you are not going to judge the morality of a 1900-era Britan for his actions because his moral ideas differ from yours, on what basis do you judge the morality of a 2012-era anybody when his moral ideas differ from yours?
“Judging yes but drawing political conclusions from that relevant to the current day,would make the US an illegally born colonial entity.So it would UK,
and all other former colonial powers.”
And so what if they are?? If the fact that the US is an illegally born colonial entity is important to determine what modern political actions that state should take (such as with regard to policies regarding Native Americans) then the moron and the fascist are the only ones who might say that the US’s status as an illegally born colonial entity should be deemed irrelevant. Same with the Zionist wonderland.
That makes it sound that the League of Nations was a rubber stamp for
the resolutions of the Allied Powers (in this case UK / France)
does it not?
Not exactly. In many cases the Allied Powers (States) had entered into existing treaty agreements that were deposited with the Secretary-General of the League in accordance with the terms of the Covenant. One of the functions of the League and the Permanent Court of International Justice was to arbitrate or settle disputes over the interpretation of those international instruments.
The Allied Powers were responsible for drafting the instruments and administering the new mandated states, because the principles of international law in the early 20th Century did not recognize the legal personality of international organizations like the League, only other States. The decision to ratify mandates through the League was adopted by the Allied States, not the League itself.
I provided you with a citation from the FRUS which explained that the draft mandate instruments were modified by the Council of the League in several instances. The 10 mandates proposed at Versailles eventually resulted in the creation of 15 states, based upon the recommendations of the Council of the League of Nations. FYI, some of the territory subject to the Armistice of Mudros, like the Hatay Province of Syria, was not detached from Turkey by either the Treaties of Sèvres or Lausanne. So it didn’t become part of one of the new mandated states. The Allies didn’t need to obtain a rubber stamp for their decision in that regard from the League of Nations.
Membership in the Council of the League included several States that weren’t principle Allied Powers or States that had participated in the San Remo Conference. The Council’s decisions on the subject of mandates were only adopted on the basis of unanimity.
The first international organization that had the necessary legal capacity for for the exercise of its functions and the fulfilment of its purposes was the United Nations. See Article 104 of the Charter. link to yale.edu
The UN could pursue legal claims, conclude international agreements on its own behalf; directly administer territories under trust; and adopt legal opinions different from those of its member states, which they were nonetheless bound to respect. So it had its own international legal personality. See the decision in Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations link to icj-cij.org
The states that subsequently created other international organizations followed that example. For example, Articles 1-4 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court established the independent international legal personality of the Court separate from its member states or the UN organization. link to untreaty.un.org
Legal status yes, autonomous to a large degree, sure
but saying it was independent in any way resembling our ideas of
independence i think is wrong.(And certainly nothing to do with
Arab independence) By that logic you can say that PA is an independent state.
Several UN member states, including Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, East Timor, Namibia, and the Baltic States have also been occupied for extremely long periods of time by foreign military forces. The majority of other existing states have recognized the PA as the government of an independent state that is being occupied by Israel. See for example the recent UNESCO vote. States don’t cease to exist simply because they are occupied by a foreign power or their existence is challenged by a hostile neighboring state.
In fact, the Council of the League of Nations adopted a resolution which excluded the ability to maintain political independence and territorial integrity under the threat of foreign aggression from the definition of “the ability to stand alone” it employed to terminate a mandate regime and recognize the independence of a mandated state. See The General Principles Governing the Termination of a Mandate, Luther Harris Evans, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Oct., 1932), pp. 735-758 Stable URL: link to jstor.org
The Ottoman’s had a military Empire that was organized into military provinces. Joseph Mary Nagle Jeffries, “Palestine: The Reality”, Longmans 1939, reprinted by Hyperion Press, 1975, explains that Palestine was part of the Arab homeland called “Bilad al Arab” or “Arabistan” (page 4). The ‘Arabistan Ordusu’, or the Provincial Ottoman Army for Arabia, was originally headquartered at Damascus, and was put in charge of Cilicia, Syria, Mount Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, and the southern Arabian Peninsula. See also Stanford J. Shaw, Ezel Kural Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, Cambridge University Press, 1977, page 85; Caesar E. Farah, The Politics of Interventionism in Ottoman Lebanon, 1830-1861, I.B.Tauris, 2000, page 417.
The Sharif of Mecca issued a unilateral Declaration of the Independence of Arabia (“Arabistan” in Turkish) on June 27, 1916. That declaration was solicited and acknowledged by the other Allied and Associated Powers. See “International law documents”, by the Naval War College (U.S.), 1917, page 17 or International law studies, Volume 73, by Naval War College (U.S.), 1918, Proclamation of the Sherif of Mecca
Balfour himself had personally circulated the detailed memorandum and maps I cited above to the Eastern Committee of the War Cabinet on December 5, 1918 which said that Great Britain had pledged to the Sharif of Mecca that Palestine itself would be Arab and independent. See the reference to the attendees and the distribution of E.C. 2201 in “E.C. 41st Minutes” (CAB 27/24, C372213 ). During the first portion of the meeting on the subject of Syria Lord Curzon, the Chairman, said:
“First, as regards the facts of the case. The various pledges are given in the Foreign Office paper* [E.C. 2201] which has been circulated, and I need only refer to them in the briefest possible words. In their bearing on Syria they are the following: First there was the letter to King Hussein from Sir Henry McMahon of the 24th October 1915, in which we gave him the assurance that the Hedjaz, the red area which we commonly call Mesopotamia, the brown area or Palestine, the Acre-Haifa enclave, the big Arab areas (A) and (B), and the whole of the Arabian peninsula down to Aden should be Arab and independent.” (E.C. 41st minutes, for 5 December 1918, page 6).
…
In the second half of the meeting on the subject of Palestine he said:
“The Palestine position is this. If we deal with our commitments, there is first the general pledge to Hussein in October 1915, under which Palestine was included in the areas as to which Great Britain pledged itself that they should be Arab and independent in the future . . . the United Kingdom and France – Italy subsequently agreeing – committed themselves to an international administration of Palestine in consultation with Russia, who was an ally at that time . . . A new feature was brought into the case in November 1917, when Mr Balfour, with the authority of the War Cabinet, issued his famous declaration to the Zionists that Palestine ‘should be the national home of the Jewish people, but that nothing should be done – and this, of course, was a most important proviso – to prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. Those, as far as I know, are the only actual engagements into which we entered with regard to Palestine.” (E.C. 41st minutes, for 5 December 1918, page 16)
E.C. 2201 contained two documents:
Former Reference: GT 6506A
Title: Maps illustrating the Settlement of Turkey and the Arabian Peninsula.
Author: Political Intelligence Department, Foreign Office
Date 21 November 1918
Catalogue reference CAB 24/72
link to nationalarchives.gov.uk
Former Reference: GT 6506
Title: The Settlement of Turkey and the Arablan Peninsula.
Author: Political Intelligence Department, Foreign Office
Date 21 November 1918
Catalogue reference CAB 24/72
link to nationalarchives.gov.uk
Balfour’s memo from the Paris Peace Conference made it perfectly clear that the UK was betraying the Arabs and had no intention of honoring any of the agreements regarding their independence. He also mentions the French territorial interests in Syria; Palestine; and Mesopotamia as three completely different geographical areas. So Palestine was never the subject of the territorial reservations contained in the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence. In any event, Transjordan was east, not west, of the line drawn from Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Allepo. So it was excluded by definition from McMahon’s proposed reservation:
See Nº. 242. Memorandum by Mr. Balfour (Paris) respecting Syria, Palestine, and Mesopotamia’ [132187/2117/44A] link to scribd.com
False. Transjordan was part of the British Mandate for Palestine, but is not part of Mandate Palestine. (These are two different things.)
Annie and Woody, I have to jump in with my eggplant alert. (Hasbarist claims Palestine on the basis that Zionists developed the eggplant and Palestinians and their supporters go into a frenzy trying to prove that the Palestinians grew the eggplant first and people argue on about an irrelevance).
In the case of the Mandate the relevant fact is that the whole concept was illegitimate. In the case of the Balfour Declaration Britain neither owned nor controlled Palestine at the time it was made and it was not Lord Balfour’s or His Majesty’s to give away (or “view with favor” its disposal).
There was a very brief period after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and before the Hashemite Emirate was established when the few small towns east of the Jordan River were administered by the Mandate Authorities. But this was also before Winston Churchill drew the boundaries of “Trans-Jordan” with Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia on a Sunday afternoon in Cairo. So it would be unclear how far this area extended into the desert or how large it was during that short period. By the time “Trans-Jordan” was defined it was no longer part of the Mandate Administration.
A case could be made that “Jordan is part of Palestine” but certainly not in the sense that the Zionists would have it. Certainly it should not bear on the core fact of the displacement of one set of people by another. The idea that the limits of theft by a colonial settler state should be defined by the limits of a the preceding imperial administrative apparatus is rather astonishing.
It is essential that we not be manipulated into wasting our time debating Hasbarists in irrelevant arguments that they have framed, including the contents of the Balfour Declaration and arcania about the extent of the British bureaucracy east of the Jordan River immediately after World War I.
homing pigeon,
I see value in correcting falsehoods and lies. And while you are correct that the entire colonial enterprise was and is illegitimate.
homing, i like my judge judy reply better ;)
Really , enlighten me on the difference please.
The “British Mandate for Palestine” refers to 1) the document that established the Mandate, and 2) the physical territory of the mandate, composed of two parts, one of which was Transjordan (which was already a state and recognized as the Emirate of Transjordan, even before Britain assumed control of the mandate) and the other was Palestine (in other words, Palestine – the last west of the Jordan.) This latter can be called “Mandate Palestine” but does not including Transjordan.
That’s an interesting interpretation
on your part, or is this classification in some official document?
That’s an interesting interpretation on your part, or is this classification in some official document?
Of course. The ICJ advised in the “Status of South West Africa case” that League of Nations Mandates were international legal instruments that were partly international treaties and partly state constitutions that were issued in the form of resolutions of the Council of the League of Nations. See link to icj-cij.org
The Treaty of Lausanne contained protocols regarding the responsibilities of the new states that acquired the territories detached from Turkey with respect to citizenship, payment of debts, and succession in interest to state archives, and state properties. The Treaty required that any disputes be submitted to binding arbitration for a final determination. In 1925 Great Britain and France settled a dispute with the foreign bondholders over the distribution of shares in the Ottoman public debt among the sucessor states. They claimed that Iraq, Palestine, Transjordan, Lebanon, and Syria were separate Mandated States that were the true successors in interest – and an Arbiter appointed by the Council of the League of Nations agreed. The Permanent Court of International Justice also decided a case in 1925 which held that Palestine, not Great Britain was the successor state responsible for honoring the Ottoman concessions with friendly Allied states. You can read about the various international and national court decisions regarding the Mandated States here:
link to mondoweiss.net
glad you arrived hostage!
/The Permanent Court of International Justice also decided a case in 1925 which held that Palestine, not Great Britain was the successor state responsible for honoring the Ottoman concessions with friendly Allied states./
Hahaha those clever bastards.
They didn’t want to pay themselves so they threw it upon the Mandates
while effectively being their sovereigns.
Talk about holding the stick at both ends.
To Hostage
BTW the comments to clenchner’s article regarding 1ss
are very insightful.
Ad hominem , slanders, trolling , etc. but no reasonable response
(so far i am still reading)
to the questions that he raises.
‘That’s an interesting interpretation
on your part, or is this classification in some official document?”
It’s basic logic plus well-established history plus common English grammar.
To Hostage.
Quoting Hostage from his own link
link to mondoweiss.net
/The Hashemite material is over-exploited. Palestine and Transjordan were part of a joint mandate. /
Just to be sure for Annie’s sake.
Isn’t that what i said in the comment that started this little incursion
into history.
To Woody
No concrete evidence then.
Just your interpretation + “well-established history”
Ok.
“No concrete evidence then.”
What do you think “well-established history” is made of? Pixiedust??? Typical zio… just ignore what you find inconvenient and make up stories to hide your crimes from yourselves.
How about learning from hostage,
he actually sends some useful data.
You are just wasting time and exchanging slanders.
Ciao.
/The Hashemite material is over-exploited. Palestine and Transjordan were part of a joint mandate. /
Yes, but the joint mandate contained two separate constitutions for the states of Palestine and Transjordan. For example “State lands and waste lands” in Transjordan were not subject to close settlement by Jews at any time and they were not included in the Jewish national home “in Palestine” mentioned in the Balfour Declaration, San Remo resolution, or Churchill White Paper of 1922.
The joint mandate that I’m really referring to there is a separate resolution of the Council of the League of Nations adopted in 1932. It outlined the legal requirements for terminating the various mandate regimes. I’ve noted elsewhere that the 10 proposed mandates resulted in 15 mandated states. The Council ruled that all of the territory in the joint mandates of Syria-Lebanon and Palestine-Transjordan respectively had to be emancipated simultaneously. That didn’t effect the status of the separate states or their separate constitutions. See The General Principles Governing the Termination of a Mandate, Luther Harris Evans, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Oct., 1932), pp. 735-758
Stable URL: link to jstor.org
The President of the UN Security Council cited that requirement in 1946 when he asked for the postponement of the membership application of Transjordan. He explained that the country was part of a joint mandate with Palestine that had not been legally terminated yet. No one suggested that Transjordan was part of Palestine or that the two countries were part of a union. See –Minutes of the 57th Session of the Security Council, S/PV.57 pages 100-101 (pdf file pgs 3-4 of 52)
link to doc.un.org
The Hashemite material is over-exploited.
Yes there were a bunch of guys born in Poland or Russia running a “state within the state” in Palestine who complained about the plans for Transjordan’s independence in 1946. They claimed that a naturalized Hashemite Arab citizen of Transjordan, living in Arabia, was somehow a foreigner and that the terms of Article 5 of the Palestine mandate prohibited the British from placing Transjordan under the control of a foreign power.
link to jpress.org.il
Needless to say the Zionist’s ran around shreying the party line that Transjordan was an indivisible part of the British mandate for Palestine, but nobody bought that argument. In any event, they quickly switched stories and falsely claimed it was one of the five Arab states that invaded the territory of Israel.
FYI, the tomb of Hashim ibn Abd al-Manaf, Muhammad’s grandfather is located in Gaza. He was King Abdullah’s ancestor and the patriarch of all the Hashemites, including Arafat and the Mufti.
“Isn’t that what i said in the comment that started this little incursion
into history.”
No, it isn’t.
/He explained that the country was part of a joint mandate with Palestine that had not been legally terminated yet. No one suggested that Transjordan was part of Palestine or that the two countries were part of a union./
I didn’t suggested it either.
Any how thanks again for the references
and for the time spent on responding.
/”Let me guess, it’s all the family business. How many rubles did it take for your grandpappies to murder the kulaks? Eh, comrade?”/
Tell me moderators how come this ass gets away with such antisemitic comments?
“I didn’t suggested it either.”
The hell you didn’t. What was the link to the zio-propaganda site about then? If you’re going to be a stinking liar, don’t do it so obviously.
This is why white people shouldn’t be dictating to brown people what their nations are.
Hey Oleg, I thought long and hard about it. We are all wrong you are right. Transjordan is really part of Palestine. The Zionists only stole one third of Palestine. Now could you now please tell us why you think this is relevant? Does it make Israel any more legitimate? Should the uprooted Palestinians be only one third as annoyed as they are?
My comment regarding Transjordan had no relevance to the current situation.
I am making an observation regarding what i view as an historic inaccuracy.
Your thoughts regarding the political implications of that inaccuracy are just that,
your thoughts, not mine.