THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE and its violations r1 - YJ Draiman

http://unitedstateofisrael.com/

THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE and its violations r1

As stated above, the 1920 San Remo Conference decided to place Palestine under British Mandatory rule making Britain responsible for giving effect to the 1917 Balfour declaration that had been adopted by the other Allied Powers and ratified under International treaty as International law.. The resulting “Mandate for Palestine,” was an historical League of Nations document that laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in Palestine and the San Remo Resolution incorporated the 1917 Balfour Declaration, this validated it as part of international law, which was confirmed by the Treaty of Sevres and Lausanne, together with Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations became the basic documents on which the Mandate for Palestine was established. The Mandate’s declaration of July 24, 1922 states unambiguously that Britain became responsible for putting the Balfour Declaration, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, into effect and it confirmed that recognition had 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. It is highly relevant that at that time the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and parts of what today is Jordan were included as a Jewish Homeland. However, on September 16, 1922, the British in violation of the Treaty divided the Mandate territory of Palestine, west of the Jordan became Transjordan, east of the Jordan River was for the Jewish State, in accordance with the McMahon Correspondence of 1915 which was not approved by the British Parliament. Transjordan became illegally exempt from the Mandate provisions concerning the Jewish National Home, effectively removing about 78% of the original territory of the area in which a Jewish National home was to be established in terms of the Balfour Declaration and the San Remo resolution as well as the British Mandate.
This action violated not only Article 5 of the Mandate which required the Mandatory to be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power but also article 20 of the Covenant of the League of Nations in which the Members of the League solemnly undertook that they would not enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
Article 6 of the Mandate stated that the Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes. Political rights were exclusively granted only to the Jewish people.
Nevertheless in blatant violation of article 6, in a 1939 White Paper Britain changed its position so as to limit Jewish immigration from Europe, a move that was blatant violation by Zionists as betrayal of the terms of the mandate, and the British became complicit in the extermination of the Jews in Europe, especially in light of the increasing persecution of Jews in Europe. This caused the death of millions of Jews trying to escape Nazi extermination. In response, Zionists organized Aliyah Bet, a program of illegal immigration into Palestine under British rules but not under international Treaties.
CONCLUSION
The frequently voiced complaint that the state being offered to the Arab-Palestinians comprises only 22 percent of Palestine is obviously invalid. The truth is exactly the reverse. From the above history and international treaties, it is obvious that the territory on both sides of the Jordan was legally designated for the Jewish homeland by the 1920 San Remo Conference, mandated to Britain as trustee, confirmed by the 1920 Treaty of Sevres and Lausanne and endorsed by the League of Nations in 1922, affirmed in the Anglo-American Convention on Palestine in 1925 and confirmed in 1945 by article 80 of the UN. Yet, approximately 80% of this territory was illegally excised from the territory in May 1923 when, in violation of the mandate and the San Remo resolution, Britain gave autonomy to Transjordan (now known as Jordan) under as-Sharif Abdullah bin al-Husayn. Further-more, as the San Remo resolution has never been abrogated, it was and continues to be legally binding between the several parties who signed it. It is therefore obvious that the legitimacy of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and a Jewish state in Palestine all derive from the same international agreement at San Remo.

During WWII the British as trustee for the Jewish people in the Mandate for Palestine, violated the International treaty by restricting Jewish immigration and turned back Jewish refugee ships who were escaping from German extermination camps, thereby sending many Jews back to be exterminated. The British went as far as blowing-up Jewish refugee ships destined for Palestine-Israel under "Operation Embarrass". The British are responsible for the death of millions of Jews.

In essence, when Israel entered and liberated the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Jerusalem in 1967 it did not occupy territory to which any other party had title. While Jerusalem and the West Bank, (Judea and Samaria), were illegally occupied by Jordan in 1948 they remained in effect part of the Jewish National Home that had been created at 1920 San Remo and confirmed by the 1920 Treaty of Sevres and Lausanne, thus, in the 1967 6-Day War Israel, in effect, recovered and liberated territory that legally belonged to Israel, when you are liberating your own land and territory, no annexation is required.

To quote Judge Schwebel, a former President of the ICJ (International Court of Justice), “As between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively, in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has the better absolute title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem. Any resolutions past by the U.N. are only a recommendation and cannot supersede international treaties.

The Arabs have Jordan, which was Jewish territory. The Arabs persecuted and expelled over a million Jewish families who lived there for over 2500 years, from their countries and confiscated all their assets, businesses, homes and Real estate property 6 times the size of Israel - 120,440 sq. km. and valued in the trillions of dollars. Most of the expelled Jewish families from Arab countries were resettled in Israel, today over half the population in Israel are the families of the million Jewish families expelled from Arab countries. Let the Arab-Palestinians relocate to those lands and solve the Arab Israel conflict and the Arab-Palestinian refugee problem.
YJ Draiman

Jewish exclusive political rights to Palestine-Israel under International Law was recognized by the Principal WWI Allies at San Remo in 1920, adopting the British Balfour Policy of 1917 (confirmed by the 1920 Treaty of Sevres and Lausanne). It was confirmed by the League of Nations in 1922 and also in 1922 by the US Congress Joint Resolution and in 1924 by treaty by the US that had declined to become a member of the League. On the demise of the League of Nations, the political rights were preserved in the UN Charter in Article 80. The Partition approved by the UN General Assembly was only a recommendation that the Jews agree to give up a part of their rights to avoid a war with the Arabs. The Jews agreed but the Arabs declined and went to war anyway. In 1920 the recognition of Jewish political or national rights to Palestine was done in such a way as to avoid immediate sovereignty by the Jews because they were then a minority and to do otherwise was considered anti-democratic. They were placed in trust with England as the trustee giving England legal dominion over the political rights. In September 19th, 1917 in a memo of the British Foreign Service, Arnold Toynbee and Lewis Namier had written that by placing the rights in trust, they would not vest until the Jews had attained a majority of population and were just as qualified to exercise sovereignty as any modern European nation-state. By 1950, after the British had abandoned their trust, the Jews acquired a majority population within the green line (armistice line). The UN vote on partition showed that it agreed the Jews were capable of exercising sovereignty. One can use other standards to determine who shall rule in Palestine. But International Law can only be made by treaty and long custom. It cannot be made by bodies having “International” in their title such as the UN in its recommendations or the International Court of Justice in advisory opinions. UN recommendations such as the 1947 Partition are only of legal force and effect if adopted by both sides of the issue by a treaty or the like. Under International Law, the Jews have exclusive political rights to all of Palestine west of the Jordan River and the Arabs have no basis for claiming sovereignty under International law as the Arabs local to Palestine have never exercised such rights. There has never been an Arab capital in Palestine.

As to other bases — the Jews lived in Palestine for over 3,700 years and their presence there has been continuous although varying in number after the Romans drove many of them out, but not all. And under canon law, the Jews have sovereignty over Palestine. Even some Arabs have admitted that the Qur’an provides that. Under international law prior to the Westphalia new order, sovereignty was attained by declaring independence and holding the ground against all comers with your own blood and treasure. Under that standard also, the Jews are entitled to sovereignty. The rights of non-Jews in private property were preserved in the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and Article 95 of the Treaty of Sevres in which the Ottomans ceded Palestine to the Mandatory Power. It insured their civil and their religious rights would be preserved. It did not preserve political rights because there were none to preserve. The local Arabs had never exercise sovereignty in Palestine.

Furthermore, the “Jewish National Home” mentioned in the Mandate reflected its status as the Jewish peoples beneficial interest in the political or national rights to Palestine, because it was not intended to become a nation-state until later.