...the Levy Report represents a departure...The notion is that the operative international treaty governing sovereign rights to historic Palestine — today’s Israel, the West Bank and Gaza — is the post-World War I San Remo Resolution...That, advocates say, constitutes a binding, still-valid international commitment to make Palestine into a Jewish state. Unfortunately, establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine is not the same thing as making Palestine into a Jewish homeland...“The” national home became “a” national home to protect the citizenship of British and other Diaspora Jews. Establishing the home “in” Palestine fudged the question of how much land would be Jewish, to allow future negotiating.
The spurious notion that Balfour and San Remo promised all of Palestine to the Jews has little to do with legal history and everything to do with religious zealotry...
The difference between "the" and "in" is, indeed, important.
While JJ's facts are correct, he leaves out one important fact.
In getting the League of Nations Mandate approved, Great Britain had the terms of the Mandate - these elements were included:
In the preamble
"the 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;"
and this in Article 2
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
and this in Article 5
The Mandatory shall 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.
and this in Article 6
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.
and in Article 11
The Administration may arrange with the Jewish agency mentioned in Article 4 to construct or operate, upon fair and equitable terms, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country
and in Article 18
The Mandatory shall see that there is no discrimination in Palestine against the nationals of any State Member of the League of Nations (including companies incorporated under its laws) as compared with those of the Mandatory or of any foreign State in matters concerning taxation, commerce or navigation, the exercise of industries or professions, or in the treatment of merchant vessels or civil aircraft. Similarly, there shall be no discrimination in Palestine against goods originating in or destined for any of the said States, and there shall be freedom of transit under equitable conditions across the mandated area.
In other words, what we can surmise even according to JJ's legal logic is that all these "thes" indicate that we Jews have a lot of rights and that the Levy Report fits those rights and justifies them. The country is to become the Jewish National Home - "the country", not 'part of".
But even more telling for today is Article 25:
In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions,
As we all learned, if, as the article states, that the territories east of the Jordan River even unto Palestine's eastern boundary (where that was/is as it wasn't defined unto years later), were effectively removed from the geographical terms of the Jewish National Home - and the reason for Jabotinsky's demand of "both banks of the Jordan" as that action was not in accordance with the original concept of what Palestine was - at the very least, all of the territory Israel now controls west of the Jordan River should be permitted for "close settlement" by Jews. That means Judea and Samaria, and Gaza. [P.S. And take note: Art. 25 works only "with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations". Without that consent, it doesn't work. And in declaring Jordan independent in 1946, just as issuing severe restrictions in 1939 as well as altering the object of the Mandate - - the acts are illegal!]
You can't argue both sides, JJ.
If, indeed, your "the" theory is applicable and you reject all those "thes" that I highlighted, wrongly I woudl suggest, nevertheless, what are you to do with Article 25?
According to logic, in order to permit Arab nationalism to develop in Palestine, Transjordan was created as a separate geopolitical entity. Jordan is Arab Palestine, JJ, you're from Habonim. You accepted that 1922 partition, the one before the Peel Report partition of 1937 and the one before the UN's 1947 recommended partition (all rejected, by the way, by the Arabs). Fine. You ask "how much land?" Well, the answer is: at the very least all of Judea and Samaria - and Gaza, actually.
Don't now try to assert that we Jews have no civil rights to reside and build our homes and schools and factories in Judea and Samaria - based on your reading. It doesn't work, JJ.
And if there is any "occupation" based on your interpretation of the Mandate, it is an Arab occupation.
^
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment