The Status Quo and Two Nails

From 

a story of two nails:

^

When the CIA Said 'It Won't Work'

In 1947, the UN would be voting on a plan of partition to solve the 'problem' of the Palestine Mandate.

What did the CIA think?

Here:

It is apparent that the partition of Palestine into separate Arab and Jewish states (and an international zone), with economic union between the two states, as recommended by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on 29 November 1947, cannot be implemented. The Arab reaction to the recommendation has been violent, and the Arab refusal to cooperate in any way with the five-nation United Nations Commission will prevent the formation of an Arab state and the organization of economic union. The Arabs will use force to oppose the establishment of a Jewish state and to this end are training troops in Palestine and other Arab suites.

^

The Palestine Mandate Flag

Thanks to this story of the arrival from Germany in 1935 of the tourist ship, Tel Aviv, we know that flag of the mandate was not as many have claimed - the blue-and-white version similar to our current flag - but one with a Union Jack and a circle with 'Palestine' inside

Description in the Haaretz news item:

^

Three US Senators Visit Palestine 1936 - Addition

A further addition to the visit of the three US Senators to Mandate Palestine in August-September 1936. See here and here.

867N.00/393

Memorandum by the Chief of the Division of Near Eastern Affairs (Murray)

[Washington,] September 22, 1936.

Senator Copeland of New York called on the Secretary of State yesterday afternoon for the purpose, so he stated, of reporting to the Secretary the results of the observations he had made during the course of a recent visit to Palestine, accompanied by Senator Hastings of Delaware and Senator Austin of Vermont.

Senator Copeland stated that he had not sought or desired to be a member of the party making an unofficial investigation of conditions in Palestine, but had agreed to participate upon the understanding that he was to be free to express his views on the situation without any obligation to Mr. Hearst, who, so it appears, financed the trip. The Senator stated that he made this clear to Mr. Hearst himself, who accompanied the party as far as Naples, and that Mr. Hearst “naturally” acceded to Senator Copeland’s wishes in the matter.

After expressing his praise of the various Foreign Service officers in the Near East with whom he came in contact, the Senator recounted his experiences with British officials, including the High Commissioner in Palestine, who, according to the Senator’s own statement, granted him every facility for the purpose of making his investigations, even to the extent of furnishing armed troops on trains proceeding to various points in Palestine.

The Senator pointed out that he had conferred not only with Jewish circles in Palestine but also with representatives of various Arab groups. He expressed the view that the Arabs in Palestine had profited by Jewish immigration and by the introduction of foreign capital in the country, but he was emphatic in his view that the British authorities had been remiss in the execution of the terms of the Mandate and in having failed to effect a conciliation between the Jewish and Arab populations. He expressed the opinion that Great Britain, instead of devoting herself to her obligations under the Mandate, was using Palestine as a political football for her imperial purposes. He revealed, during the course of his conversation, that he intended to make public statements in the above sense.

In reply, the Secretary pointed out that our Consul General in Jerusalem is a thoroughly experienced Near Eastern officer who has served in the Division of Near Eastern Affairs and had charge of Palestine there, and that we had kept ourselves constantly informed of all phases of the present situation. The Secretary furthermore expressed his confidence that the British Government was fully aware of the views entertained in Jewish circles in this country respecting [Page 451]the Palestine problem. He mentioned the fact that recent British reinforcements in Palestine have brought the number of British troops there to about 32,000. He pointed out to the Senator that, although there are in Palestine more than 10,000 American citizens, not one of them has as yet been injured and that all requests made by the American Consul General at Jerusalem for the protection of American nationals and interests in the country had been promptly accorded by the British authorities. He intimated to the Senator that, while keeping constantly on the alert in this matter, it might be delicate to make any demands upon the British Government as to the specific manner in which it should carry out its obligations under the Mandate. In this connection Mr. Hull referred to the debates in the House of Representatives at the time the Joint Resolution was passed in 1922 favoring the establishment in Palestine of the National Home for the Jews.20 He referred to the fact that the Resolution as originally drafted stated that this Government “pledges its support” to the establishment of such a home and that, at the instance of Mr. Hughes, then Secretary of State, the above expression was struck out and the Resolution was made to read that the United States “favors” the above-mentioned project.

Mr. Hull further reminded the Senator that any intervention on the part of this Government might bring forth a suggestion from the British Government that we assume responsibilities for the execution of the Palestine Mandate and recalled that at one time it had even been suggested that this Government accept the Mandate for Palestine. The Senator replied that he felt sure we would run no risk today of having the Mandate offered to us again, in view of the present weakness of the British Government as a result of the Ethiopian fiasco and the recent Anglo-Egyptian Treaty21 and the increased importance which Palestine had assumed in the defense of British imperial interests.

At the conclusion of his conversation with the Secretary, the Senator emphasized that he had only come to make a friendly visit upon the Secretary and to report on his visit to Palestine and stated that he was not requesting the Secretary to take any action in the matter. He did, however, feel that the Secretary would be justified, in view of present conditions in Palestine and in view of our Treaty with Great Britain respecting Palestine,22 in reminding the British Government of its responsibilities under the Mandate. He did not, however, ask the Secretary to take such action.

Wallace Murray

See Congressional Record, vol. 62, pt. 10, pp. 9799 ff.

Signed at London, August 26, 1936; for text, see British Treaty Series No. 6 (1937): Treaty of Alliance, etc.

Signed December 3, 1924, Foreign Relations, 1924, vol. ii, p. 212.

Did the Palestine Mandate Expire With League of Nations Demise?

I have a newspaper clipping in this 2012 post of mine on the legality of Britaisn creating Jordan in 1946. In essence, the claim was that as TransJordan had been part of the original Palestine Mandate whose whole purpose was to reconstitute the historic Jewish national home - until that was done, no territory could be fully separated from the Mandate nor could any political entity be established without also creating a Jewish state.

It is not quite that legible and so here is the full text from the JTA report I now have found:

The British Government believes that the Palestine Mandate expired with the demise of the League of Nations, its delegate to the Security Council’s Membership Committee said today.

The statement came in connection with debate on the application for membership in the U.N. by Transjordan, which was part of the Palestine Mandate. The British representative, Paul Falla, defended Britain’s unilateral proclamation of TransJordan’s independence by declaring that with the death of the League of Nations it devolved upon the British Government to either declare Transjordan independent or seek a trusteeship. It decided on the former course, he said, after consultation with the U.N. General Assembly. Falla made no reference to Palestine proper. Falla spoke after a statement by Soviet delegate Alexei N. Krasilnikov, who said that the Palestine Mandate had never been terminated, and consequently TransJordan’s status as an independent state was invalid. The Soviet spokesman said the regular procedures laid down for termination of a mandate had been violated by Britain’s declaration of Transjordan’s independence. The General Assembly resolution last year welcoming Transjordan’s independence was not sufficient to legalize violation of the Mandate, he added.He also challenged the validity of the Transjordan treaty with Britain, which allows the latter to maintain troops on Transjordan territory. Krasilnikov added that his opposition did not indicate any change in the friendly Soviet feelings towards the people of Transjordan and the Soviet desire to see them truly independent.

The US State Department also disagreed.

More here.

Jordan's UN membership was held up two years until Israel was established.

^ 

Background to 1921 Churchill Partition

Winston Churchill created Transjordan out of the territory that was to be included in the Mandate for Palestine. I blogged about that here, here, and here and also here.

What needs to be added is Churchill's frame of mind at that time and shortly thereafter.

And here on page 65 that is described so:

Churchill almost lost for us the Mandate.

And was nasty:

But there was this:

^

On the Occupation of Palestine and International Law in...1922

Is the question of the "occupation of Palestine" and the "transfer of a civilian population into the occupied territories" a new issue?  Is the Hague Convention only recently being recalled?

Of course not.

Excerpts from the British House of Lords debate on the

STATUS OF PALESTINE.

14 February 1922

LORD SYDENHAM [1] My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the Questions of which I have given Notice—namely:—

1. Whether Palestine, pending the conclusion of peace with Turkey and the acceptance of the Draft Mandate by Parliament, remains in the position of "occupied enemy country."
2. Whether, in "occupied enemy country," International Law, as amended by Section III. of the Hague Convention, sanctions such proceedings as—
(a) The introduction into the country of more than 20,000 aliens against the wishes of more than 90 Per cent. of the people, aad in violation of enemy law.
(b) The imposition of a third official language, which is not spoken by more than five per cent. of the people.
(c) The selling, to a syndicate financed by aliens, of church property which, under enemy law, was treated as Wakf...


In October last I tried to raise the question of the legality of the proceedings of the Government in Palestine, and the answer I received at that time was not at all a satisfactory one. The noble Duke said the High Commissioner of Palestine was "in the position of a competent military authority." I have no doubt whatever that Sir Herbert Samuel is a most competent military authority, but even so exalted a personage ought to have the sanction of Law behind him. It is only in Ireland that we have inside the Empire 145 at the present moment a Government which has no legal authority. The noble Duke admitted at that time that the action of selling the lands of the Greek Church goes somewhat beyond that which is recognised by international jurisprudence as the normal functions of an ordinary Occupying Power. But he contended that "His Majesty's Government is not an ordinary Occupying Power"; and I think he was perfectly right. We are probably the most extraordinary Occupying Power ever known to the world.

Article 43 of Section 3 of the Hague Convention says this: The authority of the legitimate power having actually passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all steps in his power to re-establish and ensure as far as possible public order and safety while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country. I ask your Lordships to note those words, "while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country." Was the Zionist Government which we have set up in Palestine absolutely prevented from respecting Turkish Law in the cases which I have quoted in the second part of my Question? I could have included many more cases of the violation of Turkish Law than I have, but I have selected four typical cases. Is it really absolutely necessary to do all these things? If it is, then my whole contention, of course, falls to the ground.

Take the introduction of more than 20,000 aliens against the wishes of more than ninety per cent. of the people. Can we say that this was absolutely necessary? Why was there such a hurry about it when Palestine had not had time to recover from the devastations of the war and was not in a position to receive a great influx of colonists? This horde of aliens was collected by foreign agents in Central Europe and clumped down on the shores of the Holy Land only because British bayonets supported the dumping. Were British troops ever before employed in such a humiliating duty? Of this horde, a considerable number, no one can say how many, were Bolsheviks, and it was Bolsheviks who started the riots at Jaffa last year and posted up such placards on the walls as these: Down with the English coercive power. Long live the free women of the Communist Society. 146 A section of these aliens is destitute of all morals and is now adding to the vicious elements in Jerusalem and elsewhere. Is it fair to force these people on the Palestinians?

The latest achievement of the Zionists is to smuggle in 303 revolvers and 17,000 rounds of ammunition. They were all brought into the country in beehives and incubators, which the Zionist Government had proclaimed to be free of duty. A previous consignment was landed without detection, and a third consignment was found to be on the way. This must mean that these arms come from Germany through Trieste, and it shows that these imported aliens, whom we have forced upon Palestine by our Army there, are already in secret relations with their co-religionists in Europe. I ask your Lordships to consider whether all this was absolutely necessary and, therefore, consonant with the Article I have quoted from the Hague Convention.

I turn to the selling of the lands of the Greek Church, which was certainly in violation of Turkish Law. I explained in October exactly what was done. These lands were parcelled out into large lots which could not be purchased by any of the Palestinians, none of them being wealthy enough for the purpose. Since then the sale has taken place. There was no competition, and I understand that the lands went for very much below their value. The possessors of this land, which is the most valuable suburban land around Jerusalem, are now living in New York, Chicago, Frankfort, Berlin, Paris, London—all or any of these places. Article 56 of the Hague Convention directs that the property of institutions "dedicated to religious worship, … even when belonging to the State, shall be treated as private property." I do not know if that Article helps my ease in any way, for I am not lawyer enough to be able to say, but the fact is that this Church property was sold to aliens by the Zionist Government against the wishes of the people and against the law of the country, and the effect of that in future will be most serious. Again I ask your Lordships to consider whether that could be pronounced to be in any way a necessary action.

...I have spoken of the Government of Palestine as a Zionist Government, and I think I am justified in using that term. The Government is a pure autocracy in the hands of a man whom Mr. Churchill described in the House of Commons as "an ardent Zionist." In addition, the Legal Secretary is a Zionist, the Secretary of Commerce and Industry is a Zionist, and the Director of Stores, who disposes of all the contracts, is also a Zionist. It is a remarkable fact that two of these persons took a very active part in the long and complicated manœuvres which led to the Balfour Declaration, and they now appear in high office in Palestine. But that is not nearly all. An imperium in imperio was set up in April, 1918, six months before Viscount Allenby had completed the conquest of Palestine, so great was the hurry to take possession of this little country. That Zionist Commission was reorganised and strengthened in 1919, and it consists of persons who are not Palestinian citizens but are supposed to represent International Zionism. The effect of such a body sitting in Jerusalem can easily he imagined. Like Bunty, it pulls all the strings. By the terms of the proposed Mandate it is proposed to make this Commission a statutory body, and that will have the necessary effect of placing the economic future of Palestine in the hands of foreign international capitalists. I should have thought that even a Unionist House of Commons would not have put up with that, but one never knows what may happen now.

In his recent tour in Palestine, Lord Northcliffe made two quite important discoveries. He found out that Palestine is now governed by armoured cars, which I think quite well expresses the situation, and he also discovered that the orthodox Jews of Palestine are very strongly opposed to Zionism, as indeed they may very well be. I hope I have not wearied your Lordships; I have not told half of this wretched story. In all our history I know of no instance in which we have occupied a country, said we were liberating that country, and then treated it with the injustice and even inhumanity that we have shown to Palestine...

I think that the patience and restraint shown by Palestinians, Moslem and Christian, like the patience and restraint which have been shown by Ulstermen, have been very remarkable.[2] There have been some local disturbances, which in certain cases, as at Jaffa, were started by Zionists. But it is not safe to count on the continuance of this patience, and our present large and quite unnecessary military expenditure may have to be very considerably increased in the near future. I hope that His Majesty's Government will this afternoon make the situation perfectly clear, in so far as it is affected by the Hague Convention. For myself, I attach much more importance to the moral law than to any other law, and I believe that we are now violating the moral law every day in the treatment of our late Allies, the helpless Palestinian population, for whose welfare we have made ourselves completely and entirely responsible.

THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND My Lords, the status of Palestine and the position of His Majesty's Government therein were exhaustively discussed in your Lordships' House in connection with the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, on November 10 last [3]. On that occasion I explained that Palestine is at present, and will be until the coming into force of the Treaty of Peace with Turkey, "occupied enemy territory," and that His Majesty's Government's position therein is that of an Occupying Power.

I went on, however, to explain that His Majesty's Government's position is not that of an ordinary Occupying Power. In ordinary circumstances an Occupying Power is merely in temporary occupation of a portion of enemy territory which may, and probably will in due course, be returned to the Power which formerly possessed it. In these circumstances it is only 149 reasonable and proper that the Occupying Power should maintain the territory as far as possible in statu quo ante, in order that the minimum of dislocation may occur when it is evacuated and returned to the Power which possessed it before. It is also in ordinary circumstances usual to find in the country an existing administration which can be carried on without very much difficulty.

In the case of Palestine, however, both these conditions are absent. Palestine is not going to be returned to Turkey, and the obsolete and outworn system of government which had been imposed by the Turkish conquerors upon a non-Turkish population had disappeared with their disappearance. There was, therefore, no reason for re-establishing this system, and it was incumbent, upon His Majesty's Government, as I said in my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, to set up a civil administration in the country for the purpose of discharging the necessary functions of government.

But more than this, His Majesty's Government, when they were entrusted with the administration of Palestine by the Supreme Council of the Allies at San Remo, were entrusted with it under certain definite conditions. They were to administer the country in such a manner as to implement the Balfour Declaration; that is to say, while protecting the civil and religious rights of the existing inhabitants, they were to render possible the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine. Such conditions were totally incompatible with the strict observance of the status quo ante, by which was implied the maintenance of that mediæval immobility which was characteristic of countries within the Ottoman Empire. His Majesty's Government cannot therefore admit that they are entitled only to take such action in Palestine as is strictly sanctioned by Section 3 of the Hague Convention.

I will now deal with the four specific points raised by the noble Lord. First, as regards immigration, the obligations imposed on His Majesty's Government by the conditions under which Palestine was entrusted to them, made it necessary for them to initiate a policy of strictly controlled and selective Jewish immigration up to the economic absorptive, capacity of the country. It is true that in 1888 a Turkish Law was promulgated forbidding the entry into Palestine of foreign, or, indeed, Turkish Jews for a period exceeding three months. The Powers, however, never recognised the validity of this law, basing their objection on the fact that it tended to discriminate between Jewish and non-Jewish nationals of foreign States, and in practice the law had been ineffective since its promulgation...

§LORD LAMINGTON My Lords, I do not quite understand from the answer of the noble Duke what is the present position of the Immigration Regulations in Palestine. I understand that those Regulations, which imposed certain discrimination as to the nationality of the Jews who were to be admitted, were a failure, and that therefore at the present time Jews of any nationality can enter Palestine, presumably under Zionist assistance. To my mind, the one question which touches not only the Arab but the Christian population of Palestine, is the question of immigration. I understand that there would be no objection to a native of Palestine returning to his home, but there is the strongest objection to having immigrants introduced there by Zionist or Jewish influence, and this is a point which weighs most heavily, I fancy, upon all those who dislike the idea of this Jewish Home in Palestine. I should therefore be glad if the noble Duke would say what is the position of the immigration of Jews into Palestine.

THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND I think I made it clear in the first part of my statement that we had initiated a policy of strictly controlled and selective immigration up to the economic absorptive capacity of the country—that is to say, not more than can be absorbed in the country are allowed to come in, and those who are able to come in are carefully examined before they are allowed to enter. No Bolsheviks, or people of that kind, are allowed to come in.
LORD LAMINGTON Are their passages paid, or do they come in by voluntary effort?
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND May I have notice of that Question?
LORD RAGLAN Is it not a fact that a large number of these Jews are not self-supporting, but are employed on relief works, paid for by the Arab taxpayer?
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND That, again, I should like to look into, but I doubt whether it is so.
LORD SYDENHAM May I ask whether in the four cases which I quoted in the Question, His Majesty's Government consider that the Government of Palestine were absolutely prevented from following the ordinary law of the land. Do I understand the noble Duke to say that the original Turkish Law, which rigidly regulated the introduction of Jews, had not been observed?
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND The law which was promulgated in 1888 has never been put into force, or recognised by the Powers. It is true that it existed, but it has never been observed.
LORD SYDENHAM I take it, all the same, that it has been acted upon, because there was no great influx of Jews until we took over the country.

My notes:

[1] In a speech he delivered at a luncheon given by the Palestine Arab Delegation at the Hotel Cecil in London on 15th November, 1921 he spoke the Zionist aggression in Palestine : its objects and achievements and described the Mandate negotatiated with the Zionists as "monstrous".

and this which resonates with the theme of Canaanite Eyes, here too, and more and  Saeb Erekat's propaganda Netufians

[2] In April 1920, May 1921 and November 1921, there were murderous Arabs riots in Jerusalem, Jaffa and Petah Tikva.

[3] The debate is here.  And it includes this section:

"THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND My Lords...It is quite true that the present legal position of His Majesty's Government in Palestine is that of a power occupying enemy territory. I am advised that, from a strictly legal point of view, the action taken by His Majesty's Government, through the Palestine Government, with respect to the Patriarchate is entirely legal; that is, that it cannot be questioned by the Courts and will be validated in due course by the necessary legal processes when the military occupation comes to an end. I am informed that the Ordinance regulating the affairs of the Patriarchate is perfectly legal, in that it is an order of the High Commissioner who is in the position of a competent military authority.

On the other hand, it is perfectly true that this action goes somewhat beyond that which is recognised by international jurisprudence as the normal functions of an ordinary occupying power. But I would represent to your Lordships that His Majesty's Government. is not an "ordinary" occupying power. It has been entrusted by the Supreme Council of the Allies with the administration of Palestine, pending the coming into force of the Treaty of Sevres, and consequently considered itself authorised, and indeed bound, to set up a civil administration in the country for the purpose of discharging the usual functions of Government...According to International Law a country in foreign occupation must be administered according to its own law, but the occupying Power can modify this law by orders issued by the competent military authority, and this has been done in regard to many matters in Palestine,..

LORD PARMOOR If I may say one word in answer to the noble Duke, I thank hint very much for the detailed answer that he has given to my Question, but if we look beneath the surface I think I am not going too far if I say that he, speaking on behalf of His Majesty's Government, admits that what has been done in Palestine cannot be regarded as legal under International Law, and will have to be validated by subsequent proceedings.

THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND My reply does not admit that it is illegal action. The words I used were: "I am advised that front a strictly legal point of view the action taken by His Majesty's Government, through the Palestine Government, is entirely legal."...I... made it clear that there are powers by which the High Commissioner, representing the military authority, can modify the law. "The occupying Power can modify the law by orders issued by the competent military authority," and therefore the action taken was in that respect legal.

^

Citizenship Invention or Creation?

I went this past week to the Kenyon Institute in Jerusalem

to attend the book launch 

and discussion of this book:

By the way, that photograph is of Abu Ghosh Arabs taking the oath of allegiance to the Arab cause to fight Jewish immigration.

A previous doctorate to eventually become book was also published on the subject by Mutaz M. Qafisheh.

The author, Dr. Lauren Banko, 

Credit

participated along with Salim Tamari:

The book 

"explores the colonial, social and political history of the creation of citizenship in mandate Palestine...situates the evolution of citizenship at the centre of state formation under the quasi-colonial mandate administration in Palestine. It emphasises the ways in which British officials crafted citizenship to be separate from nationality based on prior colonial legislation elsewhere, a view of the territory as divided communally, and the need to offer Jewish immigrants the easiest path to acquisition of Palestinian citizenship in order to uphold the mandate’s policy. In parallel, the book examines the reactions of the Arab population to their new status. It argues that the Arabs relied heavily on their pre-war experience as nationals of the Ottoman Empire to negotiate the definitions and meanings of mandate citizenship.

A 2012 summary of her research is here.

Some of the points during the presentations made included:

a) The British actively pursued Jewish women in the 1930s, suspected by them of illegal entry or overstay and deported them and, of course, this was the fictitious 'marriage' arrangement by chalutzim.  I knew someone who did this three times.  And the problems that developed with the Rabbinate recognizing the divorces is another story.

What wasn't mentioned was that as a result of the 1929 riots, the British instituted a regime of heavily restricted Jewish immigration, termed the 'schedule', which eventually resulted in the 1939 White Paper limitations as reported, for example, here:

As a cumulative result of those restrictions, millions of Jews were left behind in Europe and killed by Hitler.  They weren't stranded in Chile. Their right of return was denied by murder, starvation, ghettos and concentration camps not a continued diaspora existence.

b) Since Arab emigration began prior to the Mandate being instituted and mostly before World War I, starting in circa 1890, thousands of Arabs from the area of what was to become 'Palestine' found themselves deprived of the future Palestinian citizenship. Tamari claimed this was perhaps the original 'right of return' and noted that today, perhaps 30,000 returnees, third or fourth generation progeny, are illegally here in Israel, most from Chile, El Salvador and Brazil.

c) One point very much glossed over was that the whole concept of a Palestinian nationality only came about due to the Zionists.  Prior to the 1925 Citizenship Order

there was no true geo-political entity of Palestine,  It was a region, with no fixed borders and over many years divided, at various times, into very different and changing districts (and see below my eventual question of Southern Syria).  Banko did mention that it was Chaim Weizmann in 1918 who initiated discussions on citizenship but did not go into whether that idea was shared by local Arabs at the time (I have not read her book) until outsiders, and by that I mean Christians, introduced it into local politics.

d) The whole eventual citizenship construct with all its regulations was more based on Britain's previous colonial experience and was directed by religion and community paradigms rather than what we now know as nationality.  Indeed, it was recalled that the 1947 Partition recommendation called into being an Arab and a Jewish state.

e) I learned that many Jews, required by those regulations (it was not clear to me at a specific time or throughout the Mandate period) to pledge allegiance to the Mandate Government, refused to do so.

f) The actual use of the passport was basically for protection while traveling abroad as there were no elections or such in the Mandate except intra-communal ones, the Arabs having lost an opportunity to truly become the dominate section of the population by refusing the proposal of the Legislative Council in 1924.



I did not ask a question but did send one afterwards:

You write of a "Palestinian national movement" but at that time and well into the 1930s and more, the Arabs of Mandate Palestine sought to have the Mandate dissolved and instead, recognize their nationality status as Southern Syrians and to unite what they referred to as Palestine with Greater Syria.  Even diaspora Arabs from the territory, as in the US, viewed themselves as such. (see my previous posts here, here and here)

Irregardless of what "Palestine", as a geopolitical was/is, how do you see that impacting on the question of citizenship?

Dr. Banko kindly gave me permission to quote from her response which included this:

...the question definitely is one that needs asking and one which I, and others, have given thought to before.  

It's true that in writings and discussions in print and letters and in nationalist clubs and organisations and political parties of Palestinian Arabs into the 1930s there was a very real wish and effort for unity with Syria and a shared nationality status with the Syrian Arabs.  However, in my opinion and from research on this and related historical themes, I would argue that the best way to even begin to approach how these Arabs saw themselves is by understanding that identity then (and now) for the Arabs (and Jewish immigrants, and non-Arabs in Palestine, too) was very flexible.  

There were several layers to identity, and so it's impossible to generalise too much or even to pinpoint when particular nationalists realised that a common nationality and overthrowing the mandate was no longer attainable.  I think that although the nationalist movement posited itself even into the 1930s as pro-unity with Syria, individuals inside and outside the movement saw themselves alternately as Palestinian, Syrian Arab, etc.  Even into the 1920s there was still an identification with an Ottoman identity among some.  

... I think identity was flexible and layered in Palestine for the Arabs and for the Jewish immigrants during the Mandate.  During the 1930s, even though some ideas of a pan-Arab state were put forth to the British, this had a lot to do with anti-colonialism and a wider anti-Mandate movement and anti-colonial movement in the Middle East, India, North Africa.  However, many Arabs in Palestine also believed that their situation was unique, and thus felt that the only way to end the Mandate was to emphasise a specifically-Palestinian territorial identity and struggle, just as in Syria there was a very strong pro-Syrian movement that emphasised a Syrian end to the French Mandate.

I do not think citizenship was invented.

It was created, fashioned and conceived, at least on the Jewish side, which over many centuries, viewed themselves as belonging to a very specific country, whose boundaries are delineated in Biblical and Talmudic texts scores of centuries earlier.  And these texts were not some ancient dead letter but they were studied, at least weekly, all throughout the Diaspora existence and Jews were very much aware of this element of what we call 'identity'.

The international legal process - via the Balfour Declaration, the Versailles Peace Conference deliberations, the San Remo Conference decisions and those of the League of Nations between 1917-1922,  - all declined, studiously, to mention Arabs in the context of the country called Palestine.  They were included in a group called "non-Jews".

This was very unfortunate for the local Arabs.  In one sense, however, the did gain one benefit.  The residency requirement for Mandate Palestinian citizenship was two years for most of the time.  Perhaps parallel, the residency requirement of UNRWA for refugee status was two years as well.  So all those Arabs who came to the Mandate to work and make money, especially during World War II, and then fled, or returned to their lands of origin (I have no real stats at hand although work has been done), gained not only the title of 'refugee' but, in the cases they did return to home villages in Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Iraq or Jordan, they obtained the right to receive UNRWA handouts.  But that is more an economic matter.

I hope to read the book.

^

Yisrael Medad is Right... But ...

I am in the New York Review of Books:-

Palestine: What the Mandate Said
March 7, 2013
Yisrael Medad, reply by Avishai Margalit

In response to:

Palestine: How Bad, & Good, Was British Rule? from the February 7, 2013 issue     
                                             

To the Editors:

Avishai Margalit errs in his book review essay [“Palestine: How Bad, & Good, Was British Rule?,” NYR, February 7]. He writes that the League of Nations Mandate over Palestine conferred on Britain was to prepare the country “to be a ‘national home for the Jews,’ without ‘impairing the civil and religious rights of the indigenous Arab people.’”

That is quite wrong as the Mandate decision does not include the phrase “indigenous Arab people.” The phrase that actually appears is: “nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” Arabs, as such, are not mentioned. Political rights were the prerogative of the Jewish people. Residency rights, religious rights, personal liberty rights were to be assured. But nothing more than that and certainly no state which was to be established in the territory of Transjordan, partitioned from the original Mandate area in 1922.

Yisrael Medad
Shiloh, Israel

Avishai Margalit replies:

Yisrael Medad is right about the wording of the League of Nations’ Mandate document. But since the “indigenous Arab people” (my expression) and “non-Jewish communities in Palestine” (the Mandate document expression) are coextensive, apart from 1 percent of others, it is a difference that makes no difference.

If wording counts, it is more important to remark that the Mandate document doesn’t mention “political rights” for the Jewish people in Palestine. The only reference to “political rights” is the rights of “Jews in any other country.” The expression “national home” lacks any juridical meaning, unlike, say, home rule. The Mandate document deliberately left vague what the rights of the Jews in Palestine are. It is Medad who gives prerogative political rights to the Jews in Palestine rather than the wording of the Mandate.

The interpretation Medad gives to the Mandate expression “civil rights” as confined to residency rights and personal liberty rights is again of his making. There is no reason to believe that “civil rights” in the Mandate document meant to preclude the rights of the non-Jews to citizenship in any future state in Palestine.

Since Margalit avoids my reference to Transjordan, one can already suspect something is wrong.  The British established that non-state to solve any specific Arab political demands, demands they pushed in violent acts of terror, murder and incendiarism.  "Palestine", the area west of the Jordan River, was reserved exclusively for the Jews - but, again, and again, under pressure from Arab terror, the Jewish National Home continued to be whittled away, again and again.

And it is so generous of Margalit to excuse his own grievous academic error by claiming it doesn't make a difference.  That Margalit was a founder of Peace Now (and see this criticism) doesn't necessarily reflect on his academic competence.

In truth, there were serious Christian claims. But more important, I did not write that that Arabs, or any other non-Jew, could not possess Israeli citizenship.  That is a left-wing tactic: impugning an opinion your opponent really didn't state.


This is the letter I sent in now:

In Avishai Margalit's reply to me, admitting his error, he impugns to me an opinion I did not express nor, to make clear, do I hold, when he writes "There is no reason to believe that “civil rights” in the Mandate document meant to preclude the rights of the non-Jews to citizenship in any future state in Palestine", ("Palestine: What the Mandate Said", March 7, 2013).

My point was that that "future state in Palestine", at least west of the Jordan River, was to be a Jewish one.  An Arab state in historic Palestine was not at all contemplated.  However, due to Arab terror in Jerusalem in April 1920, when Jews were killed, and other violent agitation, Winston Churchill, as Minister of Colonies, decided during March 1921 to truncate the original Jewish National Home area.  He created an Arab emirate in Transjordan and prohibited Jews from either owning land or settling there, a policy the League of Nations agreed to but only as a form of postponement (Article 25 of the 1922 Mandate decision).  That policy surely discriminated against and precluded the rights of Jews who were indigenous to the country living in Hebron, Gaza, Nablus (Shchem) and Jerusalem for centuries.  The future ruling family of what eventually became the Kingdom of Jordan, incidentally, originated in Saudi Arabia.

_____________

Let me clarify:

No Arab state was contemplated in "Palestine" because not only did no one think there was a specific Arab Palestinian nationality that required a state - and in fact, there wasn't and so no legal or historical right that could be demanded were to be considered - but there were to be created several other Arabs states, i.e., Syria/Lebanon, Iraq and, as it developed, Jordan, in addition to the existing Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc., in which Arab nationalism was to be nurtured but not at the expense of legitimate Jewish nationalism.

Using the phrase "Jewish National Home" in junction with "historical connection" trumped any non-Jewish claims to that same land.

And that is where Margalit fails - fails as a Jew, as a Zionist, as an academic.

____________________

UPDATE

After discussing this issue briefly with Howard Grief, let me add:

Margalit's claim regarding communities, that "non-Jewish communities" and "indigenous Arabs" are "coextensive" is wrong.  The term "communities" meant religious groups not nationalities.  And Palestine was to be for the Zionists, that is, Jewish nationalism.

Anyone who reviews the minutes of the San Remo Conference of April 1920, found here, will learn that as the excerpts that follow show, the Jews were to have political rights in terms of establishing what was eventually to be a state and that that right overrode all others on that level and that rights were to be granted to the other non-Jewish communities as regards their traditional religious status, i.e., their quasi-diplomatic status, their land and property for the churches, missions, orphanages, etc., as well as their rights to educate and engage in non-Islamic endeavors and others.

The excerpts:

LORD CURZON thought that M. Berthelot was possibly not fully acquainted with the history of the question. In November 1917 Mr. Balfour had made a declaration on behalf of the Zionists. The terms of this declaration had been communicated by M. Sokolov, in February 1918 to M. Pichon, who, at that time, was head of the French Foreign Office...He thought it was impossible for the Supreme Council to determine, that day, exactly what form the future administration of Palestine would take. All they could do was to repeat the declaration which had been made in November 1917. That declaration contemplated, first, the creation of national home for the Jews, whose privileges and rights were to be safeguarded under a military Power. Secondly, it was of the highest importance to safeguard the rights of minorities; first, the rights of the Arabs, and then of the Christian communities...
...SIGNOR NITTI expressed the view that it...appeared to him that in principle the Powers were generally in agreement as to the desirability of instituting a national home for the Jews. The discussion had disclosed the fact that there was a divergence of opinion between the British and French delegations as to exactly what rights were to be reserved for the non-Jewish communities in Palestine. The subject, moreover, raised the whole question of the position of Roman Catholics in the East, which he did not think required a very elaborate solution. It was agreed that Palestine was to be under British control, and on behalf of the Italian delegation he begged leave to submit the following addition to the British text of the mandates:--
'Tout privilège, et toute prérogative vis-à-vis des communautés religieuses prendra fin. La Puissance mandataire s'engage à nommer dans le plus bref délai une commission special pour étudier toute question et toute réclamation concernant les différentes communautés religieuses et en établir le règlement. Il sera tenu compte dans la composition de cette commission des intérêts religieux en jeu. Le président de la commission sera nommé par le Conseil de la Société des Nations.'
He was quite sure that all the members of the Supreme Council present shared the full confidence that he himself felt in the British Government in regard to the safeguarding of the rights and privileges of non-Jewish communities. He himself would like to see the president of the commission, which was proposed by the Italian delegation, to be appointed by the League of
Nations, in order to ensure complete impartiality.
M. MILLERAND said that, as regards Palestine, there were really three questions.  The first was that there should be a national home for the Jews. Upon that they were all agreed. The second point was the safeguarding of the rights of non-Jewish communities. That again, he thought, offered no insuperable difficulties. The third was the question of existing traditional rights of non-Jewish bodies, and on that he would like to offer certain observations...He understood that in undertaking a mandate for Palestine Great Britain undertook, first, to establish a national home for the Jews in that country, and also not to neglect the traditional rights of the habitants generally.
SIGNOR NITTI said that they were all agreed on the question of establishing a Jewish home there.
SIGNOR NITTI said...that the United States Ambassador at Rome was in the ante-chamber, and had asked to be admitted to the meeting...He understood that if he attended it would be as an observer only, and not as a representative participant in their deliberations.
MR. LLOYD GEORGE suggested that the United States Ambassador should be admitted to the Council Chamber and that the president of the Supreme Council should ask him exactly what his instructions were...
SIGNOR NITTI said that...The question now occupying the attention of the Supreme Council was the subject of mandates, and their present pre-occupation in the future of Palestine and the Zionists...

Moreover, the final decision of April 25 also makes clear Margalit's error/misrepresentation since it again emphasizes communities as relating to religious entities and that Jewish National Home was a pre-step to a "state":-

It was agreed –
(a) To accept the terms of the Mandates Article as given below with reference to Palestine, on the understanding that there was inserted in the process-verbal an undertaking by the Mandatory Power that this would not involve the surrender of the rights hitherto enjoyed by the non-Jewish communities in Palestine; this undertaking not to refer to the question of the religious protectorate of France, which had been settled earlier in the previous afternoon by the undertaking given by the French Government that they recognized this protectorate as being at an end.
(b) that the terms of the Mandates Article should be as follows:
The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22, Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognized as independent States...The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made...in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
La Puissance mandataire s’engage a nommer dans le plus bref delai une Commission speciale pour etudier toute question et toute reclamation concernant les differentes communautes religieuses et en etablir le reglement. Il sera tenu compte dans la composition de cette Commission des interets religieux en jeu. Le President de la Commission sera nomme par le Conseil de la Societe des Nations. [The Mandatory undertakes to appoint in the shortest time a special commission to study any subject and any queries concerning the different religious communities and regulations. The composition of this Commission will reflect the religious interests at stake. The President of the Commission will be appointed by the Council of the League of Nations.]

_________________________

Howard Fried has now graciously conveyed to me the contents of a letter he sent recently which contains much relevant information:-

In regard to your question asking when and where Lord Balfour said the following about the Arabs, “Why are you complaining … etc.”...It appears that the aforementioned statement to the Arabs was made, not by Lord Balfour, but by Lord Robert Cecil who worked closely with Balfour as Assistant Foreign Secretary...

Lord Cecil made two memorable statements...The first was at a large public rally in London at the Opera House that took place on December 2, 1917 in celebration of the publication of the Balfour Declaration. At this rally he stated:

Our wish is that Arabian countries shall be for the Arabs, Armenia for the Armenians and Judea for the Jews … and let real Turkey be for the Turks. 

It is interesting to note that Cecil referred to Judea, the Jewish country of yore that flourished in the period of the Second Temple, rather than by its Roman-Greek name of Palestine...“Judea for the Jews” clearly meant no recognition of Arab national rights to Palestine just as Jews would have no national rights to “Arabian countries” or to Armenia. Please note also that Lord Cecil did not say “Palestine for the Palestinians” since no such nation was known or ever existed either then or now. Most of the Arabs of the land, whether it was called Palestine, the Holy Land, Judea or Israel, then identified themselves as Syrian Arabs...

...Coming to the main point of your query, it was Lord Cecil who wrote in a foreword to a book authored by J. de V. Loder that the Arabs have no cause for complaint on the Palestine question (Loder, The Truth About Mesopotamia, Palestine and Syria, published by George Allen and Unwin, Ltd., London (1923), p. 7). Here are his exact words (p. 217 of my book):

Only on one matter would I make some reserve – I am not sure that on the Palestine question I would take his (Loder’s) view. The Zionist policy seems to me of vital importance to the world. A nation without a country of its own is an anomaly, and anomalies bring trouble. Nor has the Arab State any ground of complaint. The recognition of a Jewish national home was part of the terms on which the Arab State was brought into existence, subject, of course, to the rights of individual Arabs being fully protected.

...Lord Balfour...did make a statement, as you have surmised, to the effect that the Arabs had no right to complain that Palestine would be made a home for the Jewish People. At a public demonstration held by the English Zionist Federation on July 12, 1920 at the Royal Albert Hall, London, to celebrate the conferment of the Mandate for Palestine upon Great Britain and the incorporation of the Balfour Declaration into the Treaty of Peace with Turkey, he justly noted:

… the Great powers … most especially Great Britain, has freed them, the Arab race, from the tyranny of their brutal conqueror… I hope they will remember it is we who have established the independent Arab sovereignty of the Hedjaz. I hope they will remember that it is we who desire in Mesopotamia … a self-governing, autonomous Arab State, and I hope that, remembering all that, they will not grudge that small notch – for it is no more geographically, whatever it may be historically – that small notch in what are now Arab [populated] territories being given to the people who for all these hundreds of years have been separated from it – but surely have a title to develop on their own lines in the land of their forefathers, which ought to appeal to the sympathy of the Arab people as it, I am convinced appeals to the great mass of my own Christian fellow-countrymen…

...None but those who are blinded by [religious or racial bigotry] would deny for one instant that the case of the Jews is absolutely exceptional and must be treated by exceptional methods…We may look forward with a happy gaze to a future in which Palestine will indeed, and in the fullest measure and degree of success, be made a home for the Jewish People (emphasis added).

This well-grounded quotation of Balfour appears in an anthology called Speeches on Zionism, edited by Israel Cohen, published by Arrowsmith, London, 1928; pp. 24ff.

...This is unlike the accusatory British attitude of today, especially recent Governments, both Conservative and Labour, who have erased from their memory any remembrance or knowledge of the rights inhering in the Jewish People which the Lloyd George Government, on behalf of Great Britain together with the other
Principal Allied Powers, recognised under the international law documents comprising the San Remo Resolution and the Mandate for Palestine. Balfour saw the Allied decision as a way of making amends for the Roman destruction of Judea eighteen centuries earlier as well as being a recognition of the historical connection of the Jewish People with Palestine to the exclusion of Arab pretentions.

^

On Cogan's Bluff - Huffington Post Comments

These three comments of mine were left at a Huffington Post article by one Dr. Charles G. Cogan, Associate, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School (his site is here)

This assertion is woefully inadequate for a scholar: "But how could a mass influx of Jews into Palestine not prejudice the "civil and religious rights" of existing non-Jewish communities there? The Balfour Declaration stands, along with the partition of India, as an icon to the micawberish policies of the British Empire at the start of its decline."

How? By they becoming citizens of the Jewish state which is what happened to the Arabs that stayed in the borders of Israel after 1948, preferring not to run away nor fight in a war of aggression in violation of the UN recommendation that indeed a Jewish state be established. That the state was to be Jewish was not in doubt; its borders in the end depended on Arabs losses after they sought to eradicate the nascent state.

"Civil and religious rights" are quite obviously not national nor political rights. The Arabs (actually the non-Jews, since that is the term used; Arabs never even being mentioned and that was purposeful) were not to gain such rights but only civil, personal and religious.

Mr. Cochran is subverting the history as well as the language employed.

And to someone who wrote:

For the record:

The 1922 League of Nations British Mandate for Palestine was a Class A Mandate, i. e, Palestine was to be administered by Britain AS A WHOLE until its citizens were able to assume democratic self-rule. By incorporating the Balfour Declaration the mandate did facilitate Jewish immigration to "secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home," but it did not call for the creation of a Jewish state or homeland in Palestine or any form of partition. As declared in the Churchill Memorandum (1 July 1922), "the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status."

Furthermore, regarding the British Mandate, as approved by the Council of the League of nations, the British government declared: "His Majesty’s Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State." (Command Paper, 1922)

I commented:

That the Balfour Declaration "did not call for the creation of a Jewish state or homeland in Palestine" is a mis-comprehension of the legal process which decreed very much so that a Jewish homeland was to be established. That process was (a) Balfour declaration.; (b) deliberations at Versailles peace Conference 1919; (c) attempted Feisal-Weizmann agreement 1919; (d) San Remo Conference decision, April 1919; (e) League of Nations awarding of Mandate, July 1922, Sept. 1923. It was this string of decisions that decided that no Arab state would arise in Palestine but in Syria, Lebanon, Mesopotamia in addition to Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

And again, British policy could not override League of nations and in 1939, Zionists went to Geneva to appeal against the British White Paper which completely subverted the essence of the Mandate. But WW II broke out, halting procedure.

And to another who wrote:

Both Churchill and the MacDonald White paper rendered Balfour moot.

I responded:

Ridiculous. British statements of colonial office or foreign office policies could not override a decision of a body such as the League of Nations. even the 1947 Partition plan of the UN was but a recommendation.

The last two are your regular anti-Zionist trollers but that Cogan should ...compose such inanities?  Worse, having had a "37-year career in the CIA, ...23 of them overseas...in India, Congo, Sudan, Morocco, Jordan and France. From 1979-1984, ...chief of the Near East and South Asia Division in the Directorate of Operations, and from 1984-1989, ...CIA chief in Paris", it is now obvious how administrations could be misled and ill-advised.

For example, on the definition of Palestine, Cogan writes:

"The territory of Palestine was not defined until September 1, 1922 as a line "drawn from a point two miles west of... [Aqaba] up the center of the Wadi Araba, Dead Sea and River Jordan to its juncture with the River Yarmuk; thence up the centre of the river to the Syrian frontier." This was the boundary between Palestine and Transjordan... the Balfour Declaration called for a Jewish national home in "Palestine" which later became defined, per above, as ending at the Jordan River..."

First of all, indeed, it was only the Jewish people who had any definition of the country as a geo-political entity which we termed Eretz-Yisrael.  The Ottoman administrative boundaries changed and surely did not create a recognizable "country" per se.  The Arabs were not "Palestinians" but until the early 1920s, and even later, considered themselves as "Southern Syrians" and demanded the Mandate be joined to that of Syria under France.

Secondly, Transjordan, which surely did not exist, as implied, as a country, was actually part of the Palestine Mandate until 1946 at which time, when applying for acceptance to the UN as an independent country, was refused because the US State Department accepted the Zionist argument that only when the Mandate ended and the Jewish national home was reconstituted could any part of the original territory be separated from what should become the Jewish national home.


Thirdly, Cogan's bluff, that "the Balfour Declaration called for a Jewish national home in 'Palestine' which later became defined, per above, as ending at the Jordan River" is untrue. 

Article 25 of the Mandate decision reads:

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...

There was no 'ending' at the Jordan River.  In addition to the continued administration of that area by the High Commissioner sitting in Jerusalem, as mentioned previously, there was an acquiescence to Britain's move in March 1921, first at the Cairo Conference and then in Jerusalem at the end of the month, to 'postpone' and to 'withhold application of provisions' but that was but a temporary situation, at least as conceived in 1922.

Even the September 1922 memorandum reads ""In the application of the Mandate to Transjordan, the action which, in Palestine, is taken by the Administration of the latter country will be taken by the Administration of Transjordan under the general supervision of the Mandatory."  And also, "From that point onwards, Britain administered the part west of the Jordan as Palestine, and the part east of the Jordan as Transjordan. Technically they remained one mandate...".

Is Cogan truly knowledgeable of such matters or is more a propagandist?

Moreover, as Eli Hertz points out, The Mandate for Palestine "laid down the Jewish legal right under international law to settle anywhere in western Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered in international law [done by] Fifty-one member countries - the entire League of Nations - unanimously...on June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the 'Mandate for Palestine'...".  And there was the Anglo-American Convention of 1924 which repeated the commitment.

So, whether Cogan likes it, or not, the Balfour Declaration was part of the sense of the US Congress, too.

It is sorrowful that the Kennedy Center thinks Cogan is employable.

^