tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7014209.post6986328844275916927..comments2024-03-28T14:55:27.949+02:00Comments on My Right Word: Good Old Reuters; Bad New ObamaYMedadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14333122797414935958noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7014209.post-87251181468017500092009-12-29T18:23:50.277+02:002009-12-29T18:23:50.277+02:00Thanks for the clarification. For anyone intereste...Thanks for the clarification. For anyone interested, the relevant text of the San Remo Agreement is below.<br /><br />From: The Israel-Arab Reader, edited, Walter Laqueur, New York, Bantam Books, 1976, pps 34-42. [NB: This is an edited version of the complete San Remo Agreement, and the elipses found within form part of Dr. Laqueur's editorial process.]<br /><br />"The San Remo Conference decided on April 24, 1920 to assign the Mandate [for Palestine] under the League of Nations to Britain. The terms of the Mandate were also discussed with the United States which was not a member of the League. An agreed text was confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on July 24, 1922, and it came into operation in September 1923." <br /><br />http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/San_Remo_ConventionMorey Altmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15886157582583010411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7014209.post-31684918868966583322009-12-29T17:41:38.883+02:002009-12-29T17:41:38.883+02:00San Remo devolved into the League of Nations decis...San Remo devolved into the League of Nations decisions of the Mandates - there were a few - and prepared them. San Remo was a stepping stone. The transfer of treaties you refer to stem from the League of Nations, not San Remo.YMedadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14333122797414935958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7014209.post-11459375059025988462009-12-29T15:24:14.194+02:002009-12-29T15:24:14.194+02:00My understanding is that the San Remo Agreement, a...My understanding is that the San Remo Agreement, as an international treaty, was transferred to the UN based on <a href="http://books.google.co.il/books?id=FhBISb8kIncC&lpg=PR4&ots=V_dcHwkZnx&dq=%22league%20of%20nations%22%20treaties%20transferred%20united%20nations&hl=en&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=%22league%20of%20nations%22%20treaties%20transferred%20united%20nations&f=false" rel="nofollow">this UN document</a> . <br /><br />Multilateral treaities formerly deposited with the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, by virtue of General Assembly resolution24 (1) of 12 February 1946, and of a League of nations Assembly resolution of 18 April 1946 (League of Nations, Official Journal, Special Supplement No. 194, p. 57) were transferred, upon dissolution of the League of Nations, to the custody of the United Nations.Morey Altmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15886157582583010411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7014209.post-15467270750347308252009-12-29T14:52:05.732+02:002009-12-29T14:52:05.732+02:00This: "the Balfour Declaration, ratified by t...This: "the Balfour Declaration, ratified by the San Remo Convention, and incorporated into the charter of the UN" is not quite correct. First of all, it was the League of Nations. What was with the UN Charter was the essence of the Mandate recognition.<br /><br />As Eli Hertz has written:<br /><br />"The Mandate survived the demise of the League of Nations. Article 80 of the UN Charter implicitly recognizes the “Mandate for Palestine” of the League of Nations.<br /><br />This Mandate granted Jews the irrevocable right to settle anywhere in Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, a right unaltered in international law and valid to this day. Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria (i.e. the West Bank), Gaza and the whole of Jerusalem are legal."YMedadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14333122797414935958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7014209.post-33819642704988115682009-12-29T11:21:37.683+02:002009-12-29T11:21:37.683+02:00And they always capitalize the E in east Jerusalem...And they always capitalize the E in east Jerusalem just to make their point. In any event, this criticism has little basis in law; in fact, international law DEFENDS new construction: <br />a) the Balfour Declaration, ratified by the <a href="http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/San_Remo_Convention" rel="nofollow">San_Remo_Convention.</a>, and incorporated into the charter of the UN, clearly defends the right of Jews to buy land, live and build anywhere in Mandate Palestine;<br />b) Resolution 242, which outlines the terms of the post-Six Day War armistice deliberately makes NO mention of Jerusalem. Arthur Goldberg, the US Ambassador who helped draft 242, made it clear at the time that the resolution "in no way refers to Jerusalem, and this omission was deliberate...Jerusalem was a discrete matter, not linked to the West Bank." <br />c) Resolution 252, which concerns east Jerusalem calls on Israel to desist from all legislative and administrative measures, including land and property expropriation, which might change the legal status of Jerusalem. It makes no mention of Jews building on Jewish-owned land. Nor should it, since that right is enshrined in the previously cited San Remo Convention. They can complain about the incorporation of this land into the municipality of Jerusalem, but that's all. And that's a pretty petty complaint given hundreds of years of continual expansion and land expropriation by the city of Jerusalem which has nothing to do with Palestine's Arabs.<br /><br /><a href="http://moreyaltman.blogspot.com/2009/12/jerusalem-jerusalem.html" rel="nofollow">Morey Altman</a>Morey Altmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15886157582583010411noreply@blogger.com