The Mandate for Palestine aka Greater Israel as it Pertains to Jerusalem and the Old City - YJ Draiman
The Mandate for Palestine aka Greater Israel as it Pertains to Jerusalem and the Old City:
The rights granted to the Jewish people in the 1920 San Remo Conference were confirmed by the 1920 Treaty of Sevres and Lausanne. Furthermore, said rights were adopted and incorporated by the Mandate for Palestine relating to the establishment of the Jewish national home, and were to be given effect in all parts and regions of the Palestine territory. No exception was made for Jerusalem and its Old City; nor were they singled out for special reference in either the Balfour Declaration, the 1920 San Remo Treaty, or the Mandate for Palestine, other than to call for the preservation of existing rights in the Holy Places. As concerns the Holy Places, including those located in the Old City, specific obligations and responsibilities were imposed on the (Mandatory?) Mandatory.
It follows that the legal rights of the claimants to sovereignty over the Old City of Jerusalem similarly derive from the decisions of the Principal Allied Powers in the 1920 San Remo conference, and from the terms of the Mandate for Palestine adopted and approved by the Council of the League of Nations. In evaluating the validity of the claims of Israel relating to the Old City, the Council decision is of great significance from the perspective of the rights and obligations that it created under international law which the UN cannot supersede or modify without the consent of the parties.
The League of Nations and the UN can only recommend a resolution. In order for a resolution to be binding it must be agreed to and executed by the parties concerned. Since the Arabs rejected outright the partition and most other resolutions, all those resolutions are void and have no standing whatsoever.
In the view of Oxford international law professor Ian Brownlie, “in many instances the rights of parties to a dispute derive from legally significant acts, or a treaty concluded very long ago”. As a result of these “legally significant acts”, there are legal as well as historical ties between the State of Israel and the Old City of Jerusalem. The Faisal Weitzmann agreement of January 3, 1919 stated and agreed that the Jews would have Jerusalem and that the Muslim places of worship would be protected.
The intellectual ties were further solidified by the official opening of the Hebrew University on 1 April 1925 in Jerusalem. It must be noted said opening was attended by many dignitaries, including the University’s founding father, Dr. Chaim Weizmann, Field Marshall Allenby, Lord Balfour, Professor William Rappard and Sir Herbert Samuel, and many other distinguished guests. According to Dr. Weizmann, addressing the dignitaries and some twelve thousand other attendees at this memorable event, the opening of the University in Jerusalem was “the distinctive symbol, as it is destined to be the crowning glory, of the National Home of the Jewish people which we are seeking to rebuild”.
In addition to the legal, historical and intellectual heritage, in the words of Canadian scholar Dr. Jacques Paul Gauthier: “To attempt to solve the Jerusalem / Old City problem without taking into consideration the historical and religious facts is like trying to put together a ten thousand piece puzzle without the most strategic pieces of that puzzle”. In his monumental work entitled "Sovereignty Over the Old City of Jerusalem: A Study of the Historical, Religious, Political and Legal Aspects of the Question of the Old City", Dr. Gauthier offers an exhaustive review of these historical/spiritual/
Indeed, with respect to the question of the Old City, the historical facts and the res religiosae (or things involving religion) are rendered legally relevant by the decisions taken at the 1920 San Remo sessions of the Paris Peace Conference, together with the terms of the Mandate for Greater Israel aka Palestine. Notwithstanding the fact that historical, religious or other non-legal considerations may not be considered relevant or sufficient to support a legal claim normally in international law cases, these aspects of the issue of the city of Jerusalem are relevant in evaluating the claims of Israel and the Arab-Palestinians relating to sovereignty over the Old City, just as much or perhaps even more than over the entire State of Israel and the Holy Land, as noted.
YJ Draiman
The UN under its Charter has no authority and cannot establish a country, it cannot supersede or modify international law and treaties. The UN under its charter can only recommend its resolutions and if it is accepted by the parties and signed as an agreement by the parties, it is valid, otherwise it has no validity of enforcement whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteThe Arabs rejected outright all the pertinent UN resolutions and therefore none of those UN resolutions are valid.
There was also the Faisal Weizmann Agreement signed and executed in London on January 3, 1919 which recognized Palestine as a Jewish territory.
The UN, other entities, other nations and organizations can put up flags for the fictitious Arab Palestinians. It does not mean nothing. Under International Law and treaties signed and executed by the Supreme Allied Powers after WWI. Arab states were created in Mesopotamia , Syria, Lebanon , etc totaling 5 million square miles.
The Balfour Declaration was incorporated into international treaty and Palestine aka Israel which is about 75,000 square miles was assigned to be the reconstituted Jewish National Home it its historical ancestral indigenous territory going back over 3500 years. The Jewish people has a continuous habitation of Palestine aka Israel for the past 4000 years and more.
After 1948 the Arab countries persecuted and expelled over a million Jewish families and confiscated all their assets including over 110,000 square km. of land, which is about 6 times the size of Israel.
Most of the million expelled Jewish families were resettled in Israel and now comprise over half the population of Israel.
YJ Draiman