Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Peeling Away Arab Claims

From page 38, the Peel Commission Report:

If you'll note, the international legal ramifications from this are all quite clear and pro-Zionist.

And the issue of Transjordan is also quite clear *.

And, in continuing on to page 39

it is obvious that the Arab legal claims where rejected and the Jewishness of the Mandate was reconfirmed as the primary element.

The Peel Commission, while through expediency did suggest partition, it still strengthened Zionism's superior claims and since the Arabs rejected the plan, as they did later in 1947, not only do the Jews gain but the Arabs should be punished is my feeling.


And note this from LEAGUE OF NATIONS, PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION, MINUTES OF THE TWENTY-THIRD SESSION, Held at Geneva from June 19th to July 1st, 1933,


Lord LUGARD enquired regarding the possibility of the settlement of Jews and Arabs in Trans-Jordan with a view to relieving the congestion in Palestine, where the population was increasing very rapidly. He believed that negotiations had taken place and that the Jews were willing to subscribe a large loan for the general development of Trans-Jordan, without racial distinction. Though the Turkish law, which prohibited the settlement of foreigners in Trans-Jordan without special authorisation, was still in force, there was apparently a growing recognition that Trans-Jordan development contrasted badly with that of Palestine and a movement in favour of such settlement. He asked whether the Government was prepared to facilitate this movement.

Mr. YOUNG replied that Trans-Jordan was specifically excluded from the scope of the articles of the mandate relating to the establishment of the Jewish National Home, and there was no question of making any change in this respect. [why not?  The Jewish National Home was to be partitioned in the future, Peel 1937, Woodhead 1938, UN 1947, not to mention the 1939 White Paper which turned the Mandate on n its head, subverting its purpose] His Majesty's Government did not feel that it was at present possible to facilitate the settlement of Jews in Trans-Jordan.

Count DE PENHA GARCIA asked whether, in view of the fact that Trans-Jordan was sparsely populated, the mandatory Power did not think it would be possible and desirable to colonise it, even though not necessarily with Jews.

Mr. YOUNG replied that the mandatory Power had given close consideration to this question and had concluded that it was not desirable, for general reasons of security, to encourage Jewish settlement in Trans-Jordan. There was no movement in favour of settlement by other races, and there were no vast spaces calling for colonists, although it was true that the country was not so thickly populated as Palestine.

M. VAN REES thought the mandate did not hinder the Emir and Sheiks of Trans-Jordan from permitting the voluntary colonisation of that territory. He referred to a newspaper article of March 31st which stated that the Trans-Jordan Assembly had rejected by thirteen votes to three a draft law forbidding the sale of land to foreigners. The Government representative had asked Parliament to adjourn the discussion of this Bill until the next session, but the majority had insisted on an immediate vote and thus showed their desire for a policy of the open door for the Jews.

He concluded that the Emir Abdullah was in favour of Jewish colonisation and he therefore asked why the mandatory Power opposed it.

Mr. YOUNG replied that it was true that there was nothing in the mandate which prohibited the Jewish colonisation of Trans-Jordan, but that His Majesty's Government, in view of all the considerations, had concluded, on the ground of local feeling and of the general question of security, that it was not practicable to facilitate such colonisation [in other words, highhanded anti-Zionism].

Lord LUGARD said his question had referred primarily to Arab colonisation, and he asked whether there was any objection to the Jews assisting the settlement of Arabs in Trans-Jordan in order to relieve congestion and facilitate the settlement of the "dispossessed" Arabs.

Mr. YOUNG replied that he knew of no objection, provided there was no attempt to transfer a larger number of Arabs to Trans-Jordan than the country could receive. There were no great empty spaces, nor was there any strong movement to transfer a large number of Arabs.

M. VAN REES pointed out that, if he were not mistaken, the area of Trans-Jordan was 43,000 square kilometres -- that was to-day about double the area of Palestine; its population was about 300,000 as against a population of one million in Palestine. The Emir and Sheiks were willing to sell part of the land to the Jews. Was the mandatory Power justified in preventing such sales?

Mr. YOUNG said it should be borne in mind that a great part of the area of Trans-Jordan was desert. Though the cultivable part of the territory was more sparsely populated than that of Palestine, the difference was not very great. 
[i.e., Young is trying to pull a fast one by lying.  after all, Cis Jordan also had a large desert area]

In reply to further questions, he stated there was no general objection to the admission of outsiders to Trans-Jordan, except that it was not thought desirable to admit more people than the country could support. There was no absolute prohibition debarring all Jews from entering Trans-Jordan, but individual Jews had been refused admission.

Lord LUGARD understood that the lands bordering the eastern banks of the Jordan offered opportunities for intensive cultivation.

M. VAN REES asked whether he was correct in supposing that foreigners other than Jews could buy land and settle in Trans-Jordan. For instance, could Europeans do so?

Mr. YOUNG said that permission would be required; he thought that it would not generally be withheld.

M. VAN REES remarked that, in that case, he did not see for what reason the Jews, at any rate those who had retained the nationality of any country Member of the League of Nations, were treated differently. It should be borne in mind that Article 18 of the mandate for Palestine, which provided for equality of treatment, applied and continued to apply to Trans-Jordan. The mandatory Power was bound to see that Article 18 was properly carried out and had given an undertaking to this effect to the Council of the League of Nations at the meeting of September 1st, 1928, during the discussion on the Agreement of February 20th, 1928, between the United Kingdom and Trans-Jordan, Article 6, paragraph 3, of which entitled the United Kingdom to oppose any infringement of the above-mentioned principle of equality.

Mr. YOUNG said that no discrimination was made against the nationals of any country. The only motives of His Majesty's Government in not encouraging the settlement of Jews in Trans-Jordan were those which he had given.

M. RAPPARD said he was still not clear on one point. The Commission had received information that there was a considerable majority in the Legislative Council of Trans-Jordan in favour of permitting land to be sold to Jews. The Commission had asked whether His Majesty's Government was opposed to this. It had received the reply that His Majesty's Government did not see fit to encourage it for reasons of security. He asked whether His Majesty's Government was overriding the decisions of the League Council in prohibiting the sale of land to Jews.

Mr. YOUNG said he did not know how many members of the Trans-Jordan Council had voted in favour of the sale of land, but he could state that the Government held the view that there was not a strong body of feeling in favour of such sales, and it was not prepared to permit Jewish settlement in Trans-Jordan for the present.

M. RAPPARD asked whether this was due to trouble in Trans-Jordan or in Palestine.

Mr. YOUNG preferred to reply in general terms and not to go into details.



M. VAN REES drew attention to paragraph 1, page 33, of the report and asked why -- though there were so many protests against the sale of land to Jews -- the Arabs nevertheless continued to sell their land.

Mr. YOUNG said that this lack of unanimity undoubtedly existed; some sold land whilst others protested.

M. VAN REES drew attention to the passage : "Large areas of State domain continue to be assigned to the Department of Agriculture for afforestation" (page 34). He had been under the impression that there was very little State domain in Palestine. Under Article 6 of the mandate, the Administration was required to encourage the settlement of Jews on land, including State lands and waste lands, not required for public purposes. It had always been said, however, that, as regards State lands, this article could not be applied as those lands were lacking.
Mr. YOUNG said that the expression "large areas" must be taken to mean a considerable portion of the very small State domain in Palestine. A list of the actual properties constituting it would be found in Sir John Hope-Simpson's report. It consisted of a number of small scattered plots of land


No comments: