Jewish Rights to Palestine-Israel Were Internationally Guaranteed

Jewish Rights to Palestine-Israel Were Internationally Guaranteed

In the first Report of the High Commissioner on the Administration of Palestine (1920-1925) presented to the British Secretary of State for the Colonies, published in April 1925, the most senior official of the Mandate, the High Commissioner for Palestine, underscored how international guarantees for the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine were achieved:

“The [Balfour] Declaration was endorsed at the time by several of the Allied Governments; it was reaffirmed by the Conference of the Principal Allied Powers at San Remo in 1920; it was subsequently endorsed by unanimous resolutions of both Houses of the Congress of the United States; it was embodied in the Mandate for Palestine approved by the League of Nations in 1922; it was declared, in a formal statement of policy issued by the Colonial Secretary in the same year, ‘not to be susceptible of change.’ ” 

Far from the whim of this or that politician or party, eleven successive British governments, Labor and Conservative, from David Lloyd George (1916-1922) through Clement Attlee (1945-1952) viewed themselves as duty-bound to fulfill the “Mandate for Palestine” placed in the hands of Great Britain by the League of Nations.

Jerusalem in “Mandate” Time

Two distinct issues exist: the issue of Jerusalem and the issue of the Holy Places.

Cambridge Professor Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, Judge ad hoc of the International Court of Justice and a renowned editor of one of the ‘bibles’ of international law, International Law Reports has said:

“Not only are the two problems separate; they are also quite distinct in nature from one another. So far as the Holy Places are concerned, the question is for the most part one of assuring respect for the existing interests of the three religions and of providing the necessary guarantees of freedom of access, worship, and religious administration [E.H., as mandated in Article 13 and 14 of the “Mandate for Palestine”] … As far as the City of Jerusalem itself is concerned, the question is one of establishing an effective administration of the City which can protect the rights of the various elements of its permanent population - Christian, Arab and Jewish - and ensure the governmental stability and physical security which are essential requirements for the city of the Holy Places.”

The notion of internationalizing Jerusalem was never part of the “Mandate”:

“Nothing was said in the Mandate about the internationalization of Jerusalem. Indeed Jerusalem as such is not mentioned – though the Holy Places are. And this in itself is a fact of relevance now. For it shows that in 1922 there was no inclination to identify the question of the Holy Places with that of the internationalization of Jerusalem.”

Jerusalem the spiritual, political, and historical capital of the Jewish people has served, and still serves, as the political capital of only one nation – the one belonging to the Jewish people.

Jerusalem, a city in Palestine, was and is an undisputed part of the Jewish National Home.

Political Rights in Palestine Were Granted to Jews Only

The “Mandate for Palestine” clearly differentiates between political rights – referring to Jewish self-determination as an emerging polity – and civil and religious rights, referring to guarantees of equal personal freedoms to non-Jewish residents as individuals and within select communities. Not once are Arabs as a people mentioned in the “Mandate for Palestine.” At no point in the entire document is there any granting of political rights to non-Jewish entities (i.e., Arabs). Article 2 of the “Mandate for Palestine” explicitly states that the Mandatory should:

“... be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”

Political rights to self-determination as a polity for Arabs were guaranteed by the League of Nations in four other mandates – in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and later Trans-Jordan [today Jordan].

International law expert Professor Eugene V. Rostow, examining the claim for Arab Palestinian self-determination on the basis of law, concluded:

“… the mandate implicitly denies Arab claims to national political rights in the area in favor 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. Lord Curzon, who was then the British Foreign Minister, made this reading of the mandate explicit. 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.” [italics by author]

http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/mandate_for_palestine/mandate_for_palestine.htm

It seems that the U.N commission of inquiry has missed many main points
1 - The population of Gaza has NO Human Rights and cannot on fear of death criticize the Hamas Government or the Militias who keep the public suppressed in a dictatorship. This is supported by clandestine interviews of citizens describing their fears of death at the hands of the Hamas Regime.
2 - There would have been virtually no civilian casualties if Hamas Militias had allowed
all civilians to take shelter in the tunnels and large underground launching areas
whose use was blocked.
3 - Civilian casualties were inflated by the Militias re-dressing all Hamas Militias killed
in civilian clothes before bringing dead to hospitals.
4 - The casualty number include Fattah supporters summarily executed with out trial
claiming that they were Israeli Spies.
5 - Casualties arising from use of Human Shields are included without any criticism of this war crime action and casualties from large percentage of Hamas Rockets falling on their own people.
6 - There is an urgent need to carry out the humane action of transferring tens of thousands of Fattah supporters to the PA to secure their lives something that was not done after the bloody coup in 2007.
7 - The decision of the UN Secretary General to make Abu Mazen aka Mahmoud Abbas responsible for the rebuilding of Gaza is blocked by the Hamas Regime.
8 - The actions of Hamas Militias in preventing the rebuilding of Gaza by forcing the citizens receiving building materials to sell them in the black market to the Militias to rebuild tunnels.
9 - The Hamas Regime is funneling all funds from donors to war preparations.
10 - No suggestions are made to give to Israel funds to cover destruction and losses
caused to the Israeli Citizens.
11 - No attempts are made in the report to discourage military action by Hamas to overthrow the PA regime and to create terror in Israel itself to discredit the PA regime
and to inflict death and injury to Israeli Citizens in Jerusalem and other areas,
12 - No mention is made of the dangers of introducing massive imports of armaments which will accompany the lifting the Military Blockade of Gaza!

Quick Facts about Giving Up Land in Exchange for Peace:
_______________________________________

500 American Indian nations gave their land in exchange for peace.

Their reward:

the genocide of 500 American Indian nations.

________________________________
Britain gave Hitler land (Austria) in exchange for peace.

The result: WWII and the Holocaust.
______________________________

If giving up land in exchange for peace is such a great idea, then why did America not attempt to end the Cold War by offering the Russians land in exchange for peace?

If giving up land in exchange for peace is such a great idea, then why is Israel the ONLY country in the world which is expected to do it?