SUMMARY OF ISRAEL’S LEGAL RIGHTS TO JUDEA AND SAMARIA
1. According to international law, the Jewish people are the sole beneficiary of Self-determination in the land of Palestine. The rights of the Jewish People to Palestine are enshrined in 3 legally binding international treaties. These rights have not expired and are still in full force and effect.
- a. The 1920 San Remo Resolution, (Passed by the San Remo Supreme Council. This council was given the power of disposition by the Great Powers and was convened for the purpose of dividing what was the Ottoman Empire i.e redrawing the borders of the Middle East and giving its land to its original inhabitants.)
b. The 1922 Mandate for Palestine,
c. The 1924 Anglo-American Convention on Palestine.
2. The British Mandatory was not a sovereign. All its rights and obligations relating to Palestine, emanated from the Mandate of Palestine. The Mandatory was a trustee for the League of Nations, and it was not given the power to take any steps which violated the terms of the Mandate. It could not change the terms of the Mandate at its pleasure, as it did in the following two cases:
- 1. Ceding 77.5 % of Palestine to Trans Jordan (in 1922)
2. Ceding the Golan to Syria (in 1923) .
3. The Mandatory violated article 5 & article 27 of the Mandate when it ceded the and 77.5% of Palestine to Trans Jordan and the Golan to Syria:
- ART. 5. “The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.”
ART. 27: The Mandatory had no right to amend the Mandate terms without the full consent of the League of Nations or its Mandates Commission.
4. In the 1924 Anglo American Convention the U.S. agreed to support Great Britain as a Mandatory so long as the Mandatory abided by the San Remo Resolution. The sole purpose of the Resolution regarding Palestine was:
- a) Drawing the borders of Palestine,
b) Reconstituting Palestine as a National Homeland for the Jewish world – wide,
c) Recognizing the Jewish People’s historical connection to the land.
There was not even one word in the Mandate or the Anglo American convention about creating an Arab land in Palestine
5. The Lodge-Fish Resolution of September 21, 1922, was a Joint Resolution passed by both houses of the U.S. Congress and signed by President Warren Harding, endorsing the Balfour Declaration with slight variations. This made the text of the Joint Resolution part of the law of the United States until this very day.
- “Resolved by the Senate and House of representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the United states of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national Home for the Jewish people…”
6. Under American Law when a joint resolution is passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives in an identical form and then signed by the President, it becomes the Law of the U.S.
7. Both the Lodge- Fish Resolution and the Anglo American Convention underwent the above noted process (see point 6). Therefore reconstituting Palestine as a National homeland for the Jewish People worldwide and recognizing their historical connection to the land became part of US LAW.
8. The 1924 Anglo American Convention on Palestine included the whole text of the Palestine Mandate. The Palestine Mandate included the Balfour declaration preamble committing to reconstitute Palestine as a National homeland for the Jewish People worldwide and to recognize their historical connection to the land. It did not mention anything about creating an Arab State in Palestine. The Mandate explicitly prohibited ceding any land in Palestine to any foreign powers or changing the terms of the Mandate without the League’s expressed permission. That permission had to be unanimously passed by all members. That never occurred. (see Grief Pg 204. )
9. The significance of the above (see #8) is that no decision made by The US or Britain, may be in conflict with the terms of the Mandate or the Anglo American Convention. France, Italy and Japan sat on the San Remo Supreme Council - along with the US and Britain - approving the San Remo decision. After the Supreme Council approved the San Remo decision , the resolution was further approved by the League of Nations and its 51 members. This resolution became a binding international Treaty. The Treaty became Res Judicata. Consequently all the above noted countries are bound by their own approval. Thus they are prevented from changing their approval without Israel’s consent.
10. No decision, Policy or measure taken by subsequent American administrations may be in conflict with the Terms of the Palestine Mandate. (The sole purpose of the Mandate was-to reconstitute Palestine as a national homeland for the Jewish People world- wide and recognize their historical connection with the land.) Under the Doctrine of Estoppels the US is estopped from making policies, taking any steps, measures, spending any monies on policies, which run contrary to its covenants and undertaking under the Anglo-American Convention of 1924, because among other things they are violating US Law.
11. Both their Excellencies, the Emir Faisal and Abdullah approved the League of Nations decisions. At different points in history, Emir Faisal, in an agreement with Weitzman, agreed to support the Zionist claim on both sides of the Jordan river and later Abdullah, agreed with Churchill to support the Zionist claim to the territory from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean, including Judea and Samaria and Gaza, and the Golan Heights. The Supreme Council did not want to approve the final borders of Palestine on both sides of the Jordan until they had the approval of Emir Feisal –see Professor Gauthier re: minutes of San Remo Conference
12. All rights emanating from the three international treaties were approved by the League of Nations and inherited by the United Nations. They did not expire. The United Nations had no right to vary them.
- The UN has no right to pass a resolution which ran contrary to an existing earlier decision/ resolution on its books.
The UN or Britain are not sovereigns and had no right to change borders at its pleasure.
The same Supreme Council that drew the borders for Iraq Syria and Lebanon, gave Israel the right of to its borders from the Jordan to the Mediterranean. This was approved by the League, its members Britain, France, Japan and Italy. They have no right to vary that which they had approved.
14. The General Assembly does not have the right to create enforceable resolutions or borders. So even if the Arabs had accepted the Green Line, these borders would not have been legally enforceable.
15. - The Partition Plan only demarcated the cease fire lines. It had no binding legal force;
- - It was not approved by the Arabs. In order for the Green Line to have had any sort of legal significance that approval would have been necessary at the very least;
- The General Assembly has no power to change borders. Therefore its decision or advice was insignificant from a legal perspective.
-The UN has no power to vary an existing valid international treaty which the League of Nations - its predecessor - had approved. (Res Judicata). The UN inherited from the League of Nations the granting to Israel of the lands between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River.
-The UN has no power to draw new agreements which run contrary to existing valid International Agreements or treaties which it had inherited from its predecessor, the League of Nations.
- No borders decided by the San Remo Conference and approved by the League of Nations, save those of Israel were ever challenged or changed;
- In 1923 Britain - the Mandatory and Trustee of the Palestine Mandate of 1922, and of the British American Convention of 1924 - contrary to the explicit terms of the Mandate, ceded the Golan to Syria. (See “From Time Immemorial, Pg—236″);
“This treaty which was concluded by the principal powers, in affect, as representative of the League of Nations, is binding on the League, particularly after it approved it. The League cannot therefore change the mandate provisions. (Nor, of course, does the Mandatory have that right)” (*1651 pg 404) Gauthier
Significant precedents:
1. The Vienna decision on treaties: According to Howard Grief:
Rights gained from Mandates don’t cease at the expiration of the Mandate
The principle of law that rights once granted or recognized under a treaty or other legal instrument do not expire with the expiration of that treaty or instrument is now codified in article 70(1)(b) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (the Treaty on Treaties). This article states that “unless the treaty otherwise provides or the parties otherwise agree, the termination of a treaty… does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination”.
As a result, Jewish rights to Palestine and the Land of Israel remain in full force today under international law.
The South Africa decision on Mandates — Basically says the same thing –Rights gained by a country through a mandate don’t expire at the expiration of the mandate. (Professor Gauthier)
Article 80 of The UN charter—No right gained by a country through a mandate will expire as a result of the expiration of the mandate.
Ted Belman
Jerusalem
Posts
