His claim that the mandate after the separation of Jordan left all the rest to the Jews is completely unfounded. The mandate incorporates the Balfour Declaration, which specified a Jewish "national home" (which is not even necessarily a sovereign state) "in Palestine" (which is not necessarily in all of it), while explicitly safeguarding the rights of the non-Jewish population, which can be understood to protect them from coming under the rule of a Jewish ethnostate. At the time of the Balfour Declaration, "Palestine" as commonly understood did not include Jordan (other than perhaps the immediate East Bank, but not extending far east), so the later addition of Jordan to the mandate is neither here nor there; that area was never meant for a Jewish national home, and its separation did in no way clarify matters in Palestine proper. Certainly Arabs in Palestine could not be considered adequately protected by saying they could go to Jordan if they didn't want to live under a Jewish state. Hence the British partition proposal already in 1937. No one at the time thought the whole territory should become a Jewish state by default. The British sought to get an agreement both sides could accept and, failing that and in the face of Zionist terror, ultimately just left. As the General Assembly's partition plan was not binding, the territory still remained under UN responsibility but, without a new trustee, there would have been a vacuum, so war was inevitable. The unilateral Zionist state proclamation had no legal basis whatsoever and Israel's application for UN membership in 1948 was accordingly rejected. Only after the 1949 armistice was Israel accepted and the armistice lines became, by default, the de facto borders. Thus Jordan's control of the West Bank had the exact same legitimacy as Israel's control on the other side. After 1967 the West Bank became Israeli-occupied Jordan and, after 1988 when Jordan ceded its claims to the PLO, it became part of Israeli-occupied Palestine.
That is not his claim. His claim is the legal doctrine uti possidetis juris directs that the country that emerges as independent assumes the pre-existing administrative borders. Since only one country emerged as independent in 1948, that country inherited the pre-existing borders. The purpose of the doctrine is to avoid terra nulles or "no man's land" and the conflict that flows from unstable borders.
@@ohiomom100 Israel did not legally "emerge as independent in 1948." It was only recognized by the UN in 1949, based on nothing but the armistice lines, as the final borders were left to negotiation. There was no idea at the time of recognizing all of Palestine as Israeli territory by default.
the british mandate in palestine ended at midnight on 14th May 1948. israel seized land in the west bank in the later half on 1948. the statement in this lecture that this seizure by the israelis was legal due to the borders of the british mandate is therefore false. the british mandate was terminated before these land acquisitions.
Michael Clayton Wrong. The mandate ended, but its rules still apply. Israel erxists through a majority vote of the UN in 1947, and is entirely legal. The UN vote was based on the League of Nations mandates policy. If you remove the San Remo agreements, thyen other mandate territories cease to exist. In the Middle East, this means that Iraq, JOrdan, Syria and Lebanon will have no legal foundation. Israel did not seize land in the West Bank. The Arabs (5 states) started a major war which Israel won. But the armistice allowed Jordan to stay in control of the West Bank, which it had captured and occupied, while Egypt retained rule over Gaza, which it had occupied. When you grow up andf redad some serious historical texts and get your facts straight, maybe we can discuss this further.
Denis MacEoin Hi Denis. Firstly, you say that the British Mandate expired, but yet still applies? On what grounds is this based on? If thats true, do you think that the British government still has sovereignty over Mandatory Palestine? Secondly, the 1947 UN vote you’re talking about was simply a proposed partition. The outcome of the vote was to formally recommend to Great Britain to divide this region according to the plan. Due to the 1948 war, this plan was never formally adopted and is therefore not law. Furthermore, even if this plan had been formally imposed, it can be decently argued that the partition would not be considered legitimate due to its violation of the right to self-determination (guaranteed by the UN charter). Support for this partition plan among Palestinians was not even close to an acceptable level to consider this plan democratic and legitimate. The conclusion is that there is currently no legal basis for the state of Israel. As you say quite rightly, there is thus also no legal basis for the states of Iraq, Jordan, Syria, or Lebanon. I completely agree. These nations were artificial creations of western, colonial powers. The current sectarian conflicts in these countries (e.g. the motivations of Sunni militias like IS in Syria and Iraq to destroy the Sykes-Picot border) demonstrate quite clearly that these borders imposed by western nations were illegitimate and that they should be changed to 1) promote self-rule and 2) more accurately reflect the great ethnic diversity in this region of the world (e.g. between Sunnis and Alawites in Syria). P.S. Please refrain in any future correspondence from ad hominem statements. I am talking specifically about your suggestion that I should ‘grow up’ and ‘read some serious historical texts’. Such statements add nothing to, and in many ways simply detract from, the strength of your argument. They add a needless tone of hostility to what should be a calm discussion of history.
Michael Clayton Even the PLO agreed that the 1947 resolution provided the legal basis for a Palestinian state, which means it also provides the legal basis for the establishment of Israel. The INternational Criminal Court later endorsed the legality of San Remo and 181. But the Palestinians say they want everything and seek to destroy the Jewish state. That is contray to international law and should not be countenanced. Moreover, the use by the Palestinians and their allies of repeated wars, acts of terrorism, and lawfare to destroy Israel is also contrary to international law. The 1947 partition plan indicated a date for the British mandate to end, to be followed by the setting up of an Arab and a Jewish state. It therefore has legal force, since Britain acted accordiungly and it was only Palestinian and Arab aggression that led to a civil and an international war. The British mandate remains legal because the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate regime (for several regions) and the San Remo agreement on this have not been renounced any more than the League of Nations itself has been renounced. Thge League of Nations decisions formed ther majhor part of the United Nations intentions for the area. If you regard Israel as non-legal, tgen you are obliged to declare other mandate-based countries illegal, notably Iraq, Syria, Jordan (via the Transjordan Memorandum) and Lebanon. Are you willing to declare them illegitimate because they were established by the Mandate powers? Are you willing to declare the African mandate countries illegal? The partition paln did not violate the right to self-determination, since the Jews had that same right and were entitled to exercise it in their historic homeland. A majority of 'Palestinians' originated in the 18th and 19th centuries in places like Egypt, greater Syria, Turkey, and other places. They had less right to the territory than the Jews, whose history there goes back much further and who had in some measure been domiciled there for centuries. The Palestinians chose not to accept the plan and have suffered since then due to their own predilection for violence and a refusal to compromise. Had they set up a state peacefully, they would be today a prosperous people. You say the Western borders were illegitimate. By that reasoning, all borders are in some degree illegitimate. Is the border between the Irish Repuboic and Northern Ireland legitimate? As an Irish nationalist, I would say not, but I would never advocate violence as the way to solve that. We have tried that and it caused endless suffering. We can wait for a demoicratic decision as to whether the North remains within the UK or enters the Republic. The Palestinians have shown an unending resistance to any sort of democratic arrangement. If new borders were drawn in the Middle East, who would draw them and how long would any of them last. A combination of tribalism and religious identity will prevent the emergence of any stable state. Israel is the only genuinely stable state in the region, yet it is the one you choose to criticize. Mahmoud Abbas has stated that a future Palestinian state would be Judenrein. Exactly what Hitlker said about the Fourth Reich. Movements like Hamas and Hezbollah deny any rights to non-Muslims, basing this on shari'a law (something I, as an Islamicist academic know only too well). The reason behind the entire conflict (openly expressed by Arab leaders in 1947-48) is that non-Muslims (especially Jews) have no right to rule in territory previously ruled by Muslims. To recover territory under Islamic international law means Muslims must figbht jihad. Rudolph Peters has identified Muslim international law with the rules relating to jihad in the shari'a texts. Do you endorse the right of Muslims to conquer or reconquer lands that belonged to earlier people? The Ottoman empire was one of the biggest colonial enterprises in history. When it collapsed, modern international law had to replace that, just as it did with the Western colonies over the years. The League of Nations and the UN established borders and states to replace the Ottoman imperial territories. Had they not done so, there would have been anarchy across the Middle East. Given the inability of Arabs to live together and the propensity of Muslims to kill each other for sectarian reasons and to attack non-Muslims as a duty, just how successful would that have been in 1947? I apologise for my rude comments. I am so used to responding to people who don't know the first thing about these matters, that I wrongly censured you in that way.
Denis MacEoin You’ve raised quite a lot of points there Denis and I’m afraid I don’t really have time to answer all of them. I will do my best though. For the sake of clarity, I have divided my responses into groups (according to what I considered the main points of your argument) OPENING STATEMENTS ABOUT INTERNATIONAL LAW - You say that the PLO agreed to the 1947 resolution? When did they do that? I don’t believe they ever did. - As stated in this video, the International Criminal Court does not decide international law. I recommend you rewatch the first 5 minutes of this talk for a discussion on this question. - The Balfour declaration was not an article of international law. Simply a breakable promise of the British government. - The British Mandate does NOT still apply. It expired on 14th May 1948. Please detail your evidence showing that is not the case because I don’t understand why you believe it still applies. IF ISRAEL IS ILLEGAL, ALL BORDERS ARE ILLEGAL As you say, if I view Israel as illegal, I must also view the borders of other countries as illegal (like Iraq, Syria, and Jordan). As I think I said quite clearly in my last comment, I completely agree with you here. The world (particularly the colonised world) has been scarred by the arbitrary borders imposed on it by western imperial nations. Take for example Sudan (although many others could have been chosen). This formerly-colonised nation was given illegitimate borders by imperial Britain that contributed massively to two tragic civil wars between Muslim North and Christian South Sudan. Following the results of a referendum, Sudan has now split and arguably has more legitimate borders (although unrest and corruption is clearly still a huge problem). Its interesting that you raise the question of Northern Ireland. I believe the question of a united Ireland was settled (at least for now) by the landslide referendum in 1973 in favour of union with the UK. Consequently, the border between Ireland and the UK is arguably one of the most legitimate borders in the world? Would you agree with me that similar efforts should be made to promote referenda in the Islamic world? History tells us that peace develops from good and legitimate governance. Allow the Sunnis of Syria to throw off the shackles of Assad’s regime. Give the Shias of Yemen greater involvement in the country’s government. Allow the people of Gaza and the West Bank to be citizens of a nation with clearly defined borders, with protections against incursions from foreign soldiers, and that (despite the current wishes of Israel) can become a member of the UN. JEWISH HOMELAND MEANS NO VIOLATION OF SELF-DETERMINATION You say that the partition did not violate the right to self-determination since the Jews historically lived in that land. Legally, that kind of historically is 100% irrelevant. All that matters is the current day demographics. While I know this question is controversial, it is clear that Jews have not been a majority in this land since the end of the Roman empire. Even in 1947 after decades of Jewish immigration to the holy lands, Jews were still a minority (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine#Ottoman_period_demographics). By your logic, modern day Italians should be able to claim a right to live in the UK as Romans were in control in the 1st century? THE PALESTINIANS ARE TOO VIOLENT TO DESERVE A HOMELAND I sense a strange inability to sympathise with the Palestinian viewpoint, as well as an unsettling tone of Islamophobia in the last part of your post. You talk about the Palestinian “predilection for violence”, “refusal to compromise”, and about “the propensity of Muslims to kill each other for sectarian reasons and to attack non-Muslims as a duty”. Please keep in mind that, if we were currently living in 17th century Europe, we would be saying the same thing about Catholics and Protestants. The current violence of the Middle East can be well understood as the results of centuries of colonialism and unjust governments. It has nothing to do with the “propensity of Muslims to kill each other”. However, back to the issue of palestinian violence. At no point in the last century have the Arabs of Palestine been given a genuine voice in this issue. They were ignored and marginalised by the British prior to 1947. They were outvoted in the UN by Western and Western-backed nations throughout the 20th century. Most importantly, in recent history, Israel and the US have blocked all Palestinian attempts to create an independent nation that can act as a member of the UN. Israel has even imposed crippling sanctions on the Palestinian National Authority for attempting to join the International Criminal Court. I of course reject the strongest terms possible reject violence on both sides of this conflict. As you say, had the Arab states sought a peaceful solution in 1947 we would perhaps be living in a much nicer world. However, given current circumstances, what would you do? What would you do as a Palestinian (who has likely lost land and family to the wars with Israel)? Simply give up? Or fight? Currently, these are the only two options Israel and the US are giving the Palestinians, because there certainly is no way thee countries will allow Palestine to get a good deal for itself through diplomatic processes (e.g. through the UN).
Michael Clayton Just a few comments. The PLO did indeed rely on Resolution 181 as a basis for their own statehood, when they published the Palestinian Declaration of Independence. You misunderstand about the mandate. The use of the mandate to establish the right of certain countrties to become independent still has force, even though the mandate period itself has ended. The mandates gave legitimacy to several countries, including Israel, and that legitimacy has never been rescinded. If the UN had cancelled the Mandates, they might no longer apply, but the UN endorsed them and made them the basis for the creation of the states I have mentioned. The Balfour Declaration was one of several instruments used to establish the Mandate for Palestine. The British unilaterally established part of the Mandate as Transjordan, bringing in a foreign ruler (the Hashemite family), but nobody says modern Jordan should be disbanded because of that British action. The French used its Syrtia Mandate to create a separate state of Lebanon, but nobody complains about that. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Referenda in the Muslim world will only be partly effective. Few Muslim countries have ever experienced genuinely democratic rule, and most have been ruled by absolute monarchies, theocracies or dictatorships. There is also a lot of opposition to the very concept of democracy, based on the belief that only God can make laws. In many places, active hatred of democracy. Since the organizations causing the greatest break-up of Muslim states are hardline Islamists/Salafis, they won't be interested in democratic referenda, but are bent on the creation of Islamic states or a universl caliphate. Your imposition of democracy would be no better than the imperialist agenda. Perhaps one day, the Muslim populations will fall under the sway of their liberal democrats and reformers, but every time that has been tried in the past it has resulted in disaster. At the moment, the small reforms established by the late King Abdullah are being reversed in all areas by the new king, Salman, and the religious leadersdhip is clamping down hard. As long as countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and some others finance terrorism (Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS, etc), supply arms to terrorists, and train them, we aren't going to see any real change, especiually since the Shi'i-Sunni clash is now much graeter than it has ever been in history. You are living in Wonderland if you think throwing off Assad etc will bring goodwill, you have not read enough Islamic history. As for giving the Palersinians a state with borders, I agree that that will be the best solution. But almost to a man, the Palestinians, both Hamas and the PA claim ownership of everything and will not rest until they have destroyed Israel and killed the Jews there. They never say anything else. Read the Hamas Charter: there is an accurate translation from Yale University Law School's Avalon Project. I have compared it with the Arabic original, and it stands up well. Take part of Article 13: la hall li'l-qadiyya al-filasiniyya illa bi'l-jihad - 'There is no solution to the Palestine problem except through Jihad'. And read other articles dismissing peace talks, conferences etc. Hamas and ISIS operate on exactly the same principles and according to the same exigencies of shari'a law. It makes no difference that the Jews were not in a majority for centuries. The Arabs tyook the land by force, later the Turks took it from the Arabs by force, and most of the inhabitants came from other Arab regions and were resident there for a shorter time than the many Jewidsh communities who had lived there far longer. But there is another consideration. For two thousand years, the Jews had longed to return to their only holy land. They suffered slaughter and persecution in both Europe and the Islamic world (less severe there, but not pleasant either). In the 1930s and 1940s they suffered one of the greatest massacres in history. The principle that Jews, as much as other people, have a right to a homeland where they can make themselves safe and defend themselves seems to be undeniable. The logic of their returning to Israel is as strong as any similar logic for other people. And they have turned Israel into one of the world's finest democracies, one of the best human rights-observing countries, a haven for many religions and many races, a country that surpasses any Muslim country in its aid work overseas (as just now in Nepal, where it has the second-largest contingent of doctors and others), a state that has achieved things far beyond then imaginings of any Arab or Muslim country. There are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world; they have about 8 Nobel prizes. There are 14 million Jews. They have around 200 Nobels. They have contributed more than almost any other community. And the thanks thery get for their contributions to medicine, science, technology and humanitarian work is to be despised and delegitimized. I find that contempible. I'm sorry, but I can't accept ther idea that the Palestinians are justified in their resistance through the use of violence. They have made their own people's lives a misery, let alone the lives of Israeli Jews and Arabs. This is the modern world, and insisting that ancient Islamic laws should rule instead of modern international laws and principles simply isn't on. I am not an Islamophobe: I have studied and written about Isdlam for about fifty years, I love Islamic culture, especially that of Iran (my PhD was in Persian Studies), and I know many fine Muslims. But I have a strong dislike for the many violent verses in the Qur'an and Hadith literature, the subordination of women, the hatred for non-Muslims (again in the Qur'an, throughout), those parts of shari'a law that call for the suppression of Jews and Christians, that allow a Muslim to escape punishment if he kills a non-Muslim, the belief in a permanent jihad to conquer the world for Islam, child marriage, female genital mutilation, the stoning oif adulterers, the execution of homosexuals or apostates, and much much more. If the hardline, conservative clerics could be removed, Islam could undergo a reformation and astonish the world. But I see no signs of that on the horizon, perhaps not for centuries. I wish it were otherwise. But in the meantime, I stand for Israel, whatever its flaws, because it is a real source of hope for mankind and could bring prosperity and peace to the Arabs if they would only give up the hatred that keeps them far from finding a resolution. Let's leave it here.
