It was introduced by Minister Ze'ev Elkin:
And greeted by Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely:
With a panel addressed by Prof. Eugene Kotorovich and Amb. Adam Baker:
And there was even an upset Jordanian diplomat who was perturbed by some remarks on the Hashemite family history:
What I wish to highlight was the lecture of Dr. Jacques Gauthier. His research is an amazing contribution to the area of law and national rights, alongside my dear friend Howard Grief. He traced out his 1300 page PhD dissertation (details here) in brilliant form and some highlights I include below.
1. The Mandate for Palestine did not in itself "create" the future polity of the reconstituted Jewish national home but simply acted as an agent of nurturing and development:
This follows the concept that Jewish natural, historical and legal rights pre-existed the diplomatic events of World War One and were of a level that were recognized as having precedence over other communities of people residing in the territory of what was acknowledged as the Jewish National Home.
2. And the "idea" of a renewed Jewish national home as decided upon in 1922 by the League of Nations continues through the power of the United Nations Article 80 (which, for example, assures Israel rights within the original territory until a future internationally-recognized arrangement or treaty is ever conclude):
3. Turkey transferred in a practical sense its rights to the area to the Principal Parties which were England, France, Italy, Japan and the United States and thus the subsequent territorial distribution was quite legal:
4. Palestine was for the Jews. At the Versailles Conference, Faisal made that clear as he did in the agreement he signed with Chaim Weizmann and Arabs received 95% of former Ottoman Empire areas in the Middle East:
5. Any discrimination based on religion or nationality is illegal and that includes prohibiting Jews from owning property or visiting holy sites in all the area of the Mandate which, at the least, includes Judea, Samaria and Gaza. For example:
and that was confirmed even for the area east of the Jordan even if many rights that were contained in various articles excluded as detailed in this memorandum:
The geographical thinking of what the Mandate was to include was specified:
and the maps in that volume, as the one below, viewed the Holy Land, Palestine, as encompassing both banks of the Jordan as well as into portions of today's Lebanon:
A point always stress: Arabs were recognized as have rights to everywhere else in the Middle East other than Palestine and therefore, "Arabs" as a group do not appear in any of the foundational documents and decisions leading up and including the Mandate:
One other item that had escaped my attention for the past few decades, although I am sure I must have been aware, and needs repeating. And that is the British and UN recommendation GA 181:
The British rejected it and refused to implement the Partition proposal as, for example, described so by Prof. Mosh Maoz
Britain not only objected to the UN partition resolution, it also refused to help implement it or even to permit UN observers to prepare the ground for the partition - rejecting official UN requests.7 This British refusal was largely motivated by self-interest - to avoid damaging its relations with the Arab states that had overwhelmingly rejected the 1947 partition. 7 Yapp, op. cit., pp. 114-115; cf. Laqueur, op. cit., pp. 97-98.
_______________________
And look who came to visit me at Shiloh:
Dr. & Mrs. Jacques Guathier and family
^
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment