Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Newt wrong about 'Palestinians'?
WND.com ^ | December 11, 2011 | Joseph Farah

Posted on 12/12/2011 9:27:30 AM PST by geraldmcg

Newt Gingrich has been taking heat for a statement he made about the "Palestinians" being an "invented" people.

"We have had an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs," Gingrich said in an interview with The Jewish Channel, a cable-television network. "Remember, there was no Palestine as a state – (it was) part of the Ottoman Empire. I think we have an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs and historically part of the Arab community and they had the chance to go many places."

Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum both took Gingrich to task for his remarks, with Romney suggesting Gingrich should have talked to Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu before making such a provocative statement.

Actually, no such conference call should be necessary.

Long ago, I wrote about the indisputable historic reality raised by Gingrich, and Netanyahu liked it so much, he posted it on his website with approving comments where it remains to this day.

Newt is absolutely right about this. I'm not surprised Romney got weak in the knees over it, but Santorum's reaction is somewhat surprising.

Speaking the truth should never be a problem. Most of our trouble in the Middle East has been created because policies are being guided by myths rather than facts.

I wrote that column about the "Myths of the Middle East" about 11 years ago and updated it earlier this year. Personally, I'm glad at least one prominent U.S. politician has taken these words to heart.

Here's what Gingrich was talking about.

Prior to the 1948 rebirth of Israel, when you used the word "Palestinians," you were referring to Jews, not Arabs. The Jews living in "Palestine," then under the control of the British, called themselves "Palestinians." [c] WorldNetDaily.com Inc.

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Government; History; Politics; Religion
KEYWORDS: newtgingrich; palestine; palestinian; politics

1 posted on 12/12/2011 9:27:32 AM PST by geraldmcg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: geraldmcg

In a word? No.


2 posted on 12/12/2011 9:33:09 AM PST by Jerrybob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: geraldmcg

Newt is occasionally right about some things; especially from a historical perspective.

Doesn’t mean that he would make the proper decision on such things when push comes to shove.

Newt is a man blown hither and tither by the slightest breeze. With no real core values, he is led by whims.


3 posted on 12/12/2011 9:33:58 AM PST by LegendHasIt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LegendHasIt

So....

Which “whimless” “core values” fuy are you SUPPORTING?!?!

or are you just playing whack a mole for Obama’s benefit?


4 posted on 12/12/2011 9:38:55 AM PST by G Larry ("I dream of a day when a man is judged by the content of his Character.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: geraldmcg
Screw all that!
 
There is no such thing as a Palestinian Language!
 
There is no Such thing as a Palestinian Blood line!
 
There is no Such thing as a Palestinian DNA Marker!
 
There has never been a Palestinian government nor was one ever attempted except as a tool to further undermine Israeli and Jewish rights to exist and in peace!
 
There is no unique Palestinian History!
 
There are no Palestinian Archaeology digs!
 
There are no Palestinian Archaeology artifacts or antiquities!
 
There is no such thing as a Palestinian!
 
So called Palestine at one time included Jordan.  Why isn't Jordan considered a larger part of Palestine or even East Palestine?
 
Palestine is a joke and a synthetic invention of displaced losers, who are nothing more than homeless and stateless Arabs owing their DNA and historical lineage to every country that surrounds Israel


5 posted on 12/12/2011 9:39:08 AM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: geraldmcg

Here we go again. In spite of Newt being CORRECT, his opponents just used the opportunity to spray some PC all over Newt. Newt handled it well, in my opinion, backed up by Perry’s comments about the trivial crap they were whining about and not looking at the BIG ISSUE — getting rid of Obama and his attack on America.


6 posted on 12/12/2011 9:39:21 AM PST by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: geraldmcg

Is Newt speaking truth to Dimocrats again? He knows how that makes their heads explode.


7 posted on 12/12/2011 9:40:07 AM PST by magslinger (Who cares if they are"electable" if they are going to govern like Democrats? -noprogs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: geraldmcg

Newt is 100% right on that one.


8 posted on 12/12/2011 9:41:44 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: geraldmcg

2. The “Mandate for Palestine” Document

1920 - Original territory assigned to the Jewish National Home

1922 - Final territory assigned to the Jewish National Home

The ICJ, in noting it would briefly analyze “the status of the territory concerned,” and the “Historical background,” fails to cite the true and relevant content of the historical document, the “Mandate for Palestine.”1

The “Mandate for Palestine” [E.H., the Court refers to as “Mandate”] laid down the Jewish right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered in international law and valid to this day.

The legally binding Mandate for Palestine document, was conferred on April 24 1920, at the San Remo Conference and its terms outlined in the Treaty of Sevres on August 10 1920. The Mandate’s terms were finalized on July 24 1922, and became operational in 1923.

In paragraphs 68 and 69 of the opinion, ICJ states it will first “determine whether or not the construction of that wall breaches international law.” The opinion quotes hundreds of documents as relevant to the case at hand, but only a few misleading paragraphs are devoted to the “Mandate.” Moreover, when it comes to discussing the significance of the ‘founding document’ regarding the status of the territory in question – situated between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, including the State of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza – the ICJ devotes a mere 237 murky words to nearly 30 years of history when Great Britain ruled the land it called Palestine.

All the more remarkable, the ICJ thinks that the “Mandate for Palestine” was the founding document for Arab Palestinian self-determination!

The ICJ’s faulty reading of the “Mandate.”

“Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. At the end of the First World War, a class ‘A’ Mandate for Palestine was entrusted to Great Britain by the League of Nations, pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant, which provided that: ‘Certain communities, formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire, have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.’”2

The judges choose to speak of “Palestine” in lieu of the actual wording of the historic document that established the Mandate for Palestine – “territory of Palestine.”3 The latter would demonstrate that “Palestine” is a geographic designation, and not a polity. In fact, Palestine has never been an independent state belonging to any people, nor did a Palestinian people, distinct from other Arabs, appear during 1,300 years of Muslim hegemony in Palestine under Arab and Ottoman rule. Local Arabs during that rule were actually considered part of and subject to the authority of Greater Syria (Suriyya al-Kubra).

The ICJ, throughout its lengthy opinion, chooses to speak incessantly of “Palestinians” and “Palestine” as an Arab entity, failing to define these two terms and making no clarification as to the nature of the “Mandate for Palestine.”

Palestine is a geographical area, not a nationality.

Below is a copy of the document as filed at the British National Archive describing the delineation of the geographical area called Palestine:

PALESTINE

INTRODUCTORY.

POSITION, ETC.

Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between Latitude 30° N. and 33° N., Longitude 34° 30’ E. and 35° 30’ E.

On the North it is bounded by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and Lebanon, on the East by Syria and Trans-Jordan, on the South-west by the Egyptian province of Sinai, on the South-east by the Gulf of Aqaba and on the West by the Mediterranean. The frontier with Syria was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Briefly stated, the boundaries are as follows:

North. – From Ras en Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to a point west of Qadas, thence in a northerly direction to Metulla, thence east to a point west of Banias.

East. – From Banias in a southerly direction east of Lake Hula to Jisr Banat Ya’pub, thence along a line east of the Jordan and the Lake of Tiberias and on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line, thence along the centre of the river Yarmuq to its confluence with the Jordan, thence along the centres of the Jordan, the Dead Sea and the Wadi Araba to a point on the Gulf of Aqaba two miles west of the town of Aqaba, thence along the shore of the Gulf of Aqaba to Ras Jaba.

South. – From Ras Jaba in a generally north-westerly direction to the junction of the Neki-Aqaba and Gaza Aqaba Roads, thence to a point west-north-west of Ain Maghara and thence to a point on the Mediterranean coast north-west of Rafa.

West. – The Mediterranean Sea.

Like a mantra, Arabs, the UN, its organs and now the International Court of Justice have claimed repeatedly that the Palestinians are a native people – so much so that almost everyone takes it for granted. The problem is that a stateless Palestinian people is a fabrication. The word ‘Palestine’ is not even Arabic.4

In a report by His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Council of the League of Nations on the administration of Palestine and Trans-Jordan for the year 1938, the British made it clear: Palestine is not a State but is the name of a geographical area.5

The ICJ Bench creates the impression that the League of Nations was speaking of a nascent state or national grouping – the Palestinians who were one of the “communities” mentioned in Article 22 of the League of Nations. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Mandate for Palestine was a Mandate for Jewish self-determination.

It appears that the Court ignored the content of this most significant legally-binding document regarding the status of the Territories.

Paragraph 1 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations reads:

“To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilization and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.”6

The Palestinian [British] Royal Commission Report of July 1937 addresses Arab claims that the creation of the Jewish National Home as directed by the Mandate for Palestine violated Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, arguing that they are the communities mentioned in paragraph 4:

“As to the claim, argued before us by Arab witnesses, that the Palestine Mandate violates Article 22 of the Covenant because it is not in accordance with paragraph 4 thereof, we would point out (a) that the provisional recognition of ‘certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire’ as independent nations is permissive; the words are ‘can be provisionally recognised’, not ‘will’ or ‘shall’: (b) that the penultimate paragraph of Article 22 prescribes that the degree of authority to be exercised by the Mandatory shall be defined, at need, by the Council of the League: (c) that the acceptance by the Allied Powers and the United States of the policy of the Balfour Declaration made it clear from the beginning that Palestine would have to be treated differently from Syria and Iraq, and that this difference of treatment was confirmed by the Supreme Council in the Treaty of Sevres and by the Council of the League in sanctioning the Mandate.

“This particular question is of less practical importance than it might seem to be. For Article 2 of the Mandate requires ‘the development of self-governing institutions’; and, read in the light of the general intention of the Mandate System (of which something will be said presently), this requirement implies, in our judgment, the ultimate establishment of independence.

“(3) The field [Territory] in which the Jewish National Home was to be established was understood, at the time of the Balfour Declaration, to be the whole of historic Palestine, and the Zionists were seriously disappointed when Trans-Jordan was cut away from that field [Territory] under Article 25.” [E.H., That excluded 77 percent of historic Palestine – the territory east of the Jordan River, what became later Trans-Jordan.]7

The “inhabitants” of the territory for whom the Mandate for Palestine was created, who according to the Mandate were “not yet able” to govern themselves and for whom self-determination was a “sacred trust,” were not Palestinians, or even Arabs. The Mandate for Palestine was created by the predecessor of the United Nations, the League of Nations, for the Jewish People.8

The second paragraph of the preamble of the Mandate for Palestine therefore reads:

“Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine … Recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country ...”9 [italics by author].

The ICJ erred in identifying the “Mandate for Palestine” as a Class “A” Mandate.

The Inernational Court of Justice also assumed that the “Mandate for Palestine” was a Class “A” mandate,10 a common, but inaccurate assertion that can be found in many dictionaries and encyclopedias, and is frequently used by the pro-Palestinian media. In paragraph 70 of the opinion, the Court erroneously states that:

“Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. At the end of the First World War, a class [type] ‘A’ Mandate for Palestine was entrusted to Great Britain by the League of Nations, pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the _Covenant …”11 [italics by author].

Indeed, Class “A” status was granted to a number of Arab peoples who were ready for independence in the former Ottoman Empire, and only to Arab entities.12 Palestinian Arabs were not one of these ‘Arab peoples.’ The Palestine Royal Report clarifies this point:

“(2) The Mandate [for Palestine] is of a different type from the Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon and the draft Mandate for Iraq. These latter, which were called for convenience “A” Mandates, accorded with the fourth paragraph of Article 22. Thus the Syrian Mandate provided that the government should be based on an organic law which should take into account the rights, interests and wishes of all the inhabitants, and that measures should be enacted ‘to facilitate the progressive development of Syria and the Lebanon as independent States’. The corresponding sentences of the draft Mandate for Iraq were the same. In compliance with them National Legislatures were established in due course on an elective basis. Article 1 of the Palestine Mandate, on the other hand, vests ‘full powers of legislation and of administration’, within the limits of the Mandate, in the Mandatory”13, 14 [italics by author].

The Palestine Royal Report highlights additional differences:

“Unquestionably, however, the primary purpose of the Mandate, as expressed in its preamble and its articles, is to promote the establishment of the Jewish National Home.

“(5) Articles 4, 6 and 11 provide for the recognition of a Jewish Agency ‘as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration’ on matters affecting Jewish interests. No such body is envisaged for dealing with Arab interests.15

“48. But Palestine was different from the other ex-Turkish provinces. It was, indeed, unique both as the Holy Land of three world-religions and as the old historic homeland of the Jews. The Arabs had lived in it for centuries, but they had long ceased to rule it, and in view of its peculiar character they could not now claim to possess it in the same way as they could claim possession of Syria or Iraq”16 [italics by author].

Identifying the “Mandate for Palestine” as Class “A” was vital to the ICJ.

There is much to be gained by attributing Class “A” status to the Mandate for Palestine. If ‘the inhabitants of Palestine’ were ready for independence under a Class “A” mandate, then the Palestinian Arabs that made up the majority of the inhabitants of Palestine in 1922 (589,177 Arabs vs. 83,790 Jews)17 could then logically claim that they were the intended beneficiaries of the Mandate for Palestine – provided one never reads the actual wording of the document:

1. The “Mandate for Palestine”18 never mentions Class “A” status at any time for Palestinian Arabs.

2. Article 2 clearly speaks of the Mandatory as being:

“responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home” [italics by author].

The Mandate calls for steps to encourage Jewish immigration and settlement throughout Palestine except east of the Jordan River. Historically, therefore, Palestine was an ‘anomaly’ within the Mandate system, ‘in a class of its own’ – initially referred to by the British as a “special regime.”19

Political rights were granted to Jews only.

Had the ICJ Bench examined all six pages of the Mandate for Palestine document, it would have also noted that several times the Mandate for Palestine clearly differentiates between political rights – referring to Jewish self-determination as an emerging polity – and civil and religious rights, referring to guarantees of equal personal freedoms to non-Jewish residents as individuals and within select communities. Not once are Arabs as a people mentioned in the Mandate for Palestine. At no point in the entire document is there any granting of political rights to non-Jewish entities (i.e., Arabs) because political rights to self-determination as a polity for Arabs were guaranteed in three other parallel Class “A” mandates – in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. Again, the Bench failed to do its history homework. For instance, Article 2 of the Mandate for Palestine states explicitly that the Mandatory should:

“… be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion” [italics by author].

Eleven times in the Mandate for Palestine the League of Nations speaks specifically of Jews and the Jewish people, calling upon Great Britain to create a nationality law “to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.”

There is not one mention of the word “Palestinians” or the phrase “Palestinian Arabs,” as it is exploited today. The “non-Jewish communities” the Mandate document speaks of were extensions (or in today’s parlance, ‘diaspora communities’) of another Arab people for whom a separate mandate had been drawn up at the same time: the Syrians that the International Court of Justice ignored in its so-called “Historical background” of the Mandate system.20

Consequently, it is not surprising that a local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, stated in his testimony in 1937 before the Peel Commission:

“There is no such country [as Palestine]! Palestine is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries, part of Syria.”21

The term ‘Palestinian’ in its present connotation had only been invented in the 1960s to paint Jews – who had adopted the term ‘Israelis’ after the establishment of the State of Israel – as invaders now residing on Arab turf. The ICJ was unaware that written into the terms of the Mandate, Palestinian Jews had been directed to establish a “Jewish Agency for Palestine” (today, the Jewish Agency), to further Jewish settlements, or that since 1902, there had been an “Anglo-Palestine Bank,” established by the Zionist Movement (today Bank Leumi). Nor did they know that Jews had established a “Palestine Philharmonic Orchestra” in 1936 (today, the Israeli Philharmonic), and an English-language newspaper called the “The Palestine Post’”in 1932 (today, The Jerusalem Post) – along with numerous other Jewish Palestinian institutions.

Consequently, the ICJ incorrectly cites the unfulfilled Mandate for Palestine and the Partition Resolution concerning Palestine as justification for the Bench’s intervention in the case. The ICJ argues that as the judicial arm of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice has jurisdiction in this case because of its responsibility as a UN institution for bringing Palestinian self-determination to fruition! In paragraph 49 of the opinion, the Bench declares:

“… the Court does not consider that the subject-matter of the General Assembly’s request can be regarded as only a bilateral matter between Israel and Palestine …[therefore] construction of the wall must be deemed to be directly of concern to the United Nations. The responsibility of the United Nations in this matter also has its origin in the Mandate and the Partition Resolution concerning Palestine.22 This responsibility has been described by the General Assembly as ‘a permanent responsibility towards the question of Palestine until the question is resolved in all its aspects in a satisfactory manner in accordance with international legitimacy’ (General Assembly resolution 57/107 of 3 December 2002.) …” the objective being “the realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people” [italics by author].

To the average reader without historical knowledge of this conflict, the term “Mandate for Palestine” sounds like an Arab trusteeship, but this interpretation changes neither history nor legal facts about Israel.

Had the ICJ examined the minutes of the report of the 1947 “United Nations Special Committee on Palestine,”23 among the myriad of documents it did examine, the learned judges would have known that the Arabs categorically rejected the Mandate for Palestine. In the July 22, 1947 testimony of the President of the Council of Lebanon, Hamid Frangie, the Lebanese Minister of Foreign Affairs, speaking on behalf of all the Arab countries, declared unequivocally:

“… there is only one solution for the Palestinian problem, namely cessation of the Mandate [for the Jews]” and both the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate are “null and valueless.” All of Palestine, he claimed, “is in fact an integral part of this Arab world, which is organized into sovereign States (with no mention of an Arab Palestinian State) bound together by the political and economic pact of 22 March 1945”24 [E.H., the Arab League].

Frangie warned of more bloodshed:

“The Governments of the Arab States will not under any circumstances agree to permit the establishment of Zionism as an autonomous State on Arab territory” and that Arab countries “wish to state that they feel certain that the partition of Palestine and the creation of a Jewish State would result only in bloodshed and unrest throughout the entire Middle East”25 [italics by author].

This is not the only document that would have instructed the judges that the Mandate for Palestine was not for Arab Palestinians. Article 2026 of the PLO Charter, adopted by the Palestine National Council in July 1968 and never legally revised,27 and proudly posted on the Palestinian delegation’s UN website, states:

“The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void.”28

The PLO Charter adds that Jews do not meet the criteria of a nationality and therefore do not deserve statehood at all, clarifying this statement in Article 21 of the Palestinian Charter, that Palestinians,

“… reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine.”

It is difficult to ignore yet another instance of historical fantasy, where the ICJ also quotes extensively from Article 13 of the Mandate for Palestine with respect to Jerusalem’s Holy Places and access to them as one of the foundations for Palestinian rights allegedly violated by the security barrier. The ICJ states in paragraph 129 of the Opinion:

“In addition to the general guarantees of freedom of movement under Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, account must also be taken of specific guarantees of access to the Christian, Jewish and Islamic Holy Places. The status of the Christian Holy Places in the Ottoman Empire dates far back in time, the latest provisions relating thereto having been incorporated into Article 62 of the Treaty of Berlin of 13 July 1878. The Mandate for Palestine given to the British Government on 24 July 1922 included an Article 13, under which:

“All responsibility in connection with the Holy Places and religious buildings or sites in Palestine, including that of preserving existing rights and of securing free access to the Holy Places, religious buildings and sites and the free exercise of worship, while ensuring the requirements of public order and decorum, is assumed by the Mandatory…” Article 13 further stated: “nothing in this mandate shall be construed as conferring … authority to interfere with the fabric or the management of purely Moslem sacred shrines, the immunities of which are guaranteed.”29

In fact, the 187-word quote is longer than the ICJ’s entire treatment of nearly three decades of British Mandate, which is summed up in one sentence, and is part of the ICJ rewriting of history:

“In 1947 the United Kingdom announced its intention to complete evacuation of the mandated territory by 1 August 1948, subsequently advancing that date to 15 May 1948.”30

The Preamble of the Mandate for Palestine, as well as the other 28 articles of this legal document, including eight articles which specifically refer to the Jewish nature of the Mandate and discuss where Jews are legally permitted to settle and where they are not, appear nowhere in the Court’s document.31

Origin of the “Mandate for Palestine” the ICJ overlooked.

The Mandate for Palestine was conferred on April 24 1920, at the San Remo Conference, and the terms of the Mandate were further delineated on August 10 1920, in the Treaty of Sevres.

The Treaty of Sevres, known also as the Peace Treaty, was settled following World War I at Sevres (France), between the Ottoman Empire (Turkey), and the Principal Allied Powers.

Turkey relinquished its sovereignty over Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Palestine, which became British mandates, and Syria (Lebanon included), which became a French mandate.

The Treaty of Sevres was not ratified by all Turks, and a new treaty was renegotiated and signed on July 24 1923. It became known as the Treaty of Lausanne.

The Treaty of Sevres in Section VII, Articles 94 and 95, states clearly in each case who are the inhabitants referred to in paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.32

Article 94 distinctly indicates that Paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations applies to the Arab inhabitants living within the areas covered by the Mandates for Syria and Mesopotamia. The Article reads:

“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 recognised as independent States subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone …” [italics by author].

Article 95 of the Treaty of Sevres, however, makes it clear that paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations was not to be applied to the Arab inhabitants living within the area to be delineated by the Mandate for Palestine, but only to the Jews. The Article reads:

“The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, 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 …”

Historically, therefore, Palestine was an ‘anomaly’ within the Mandate system, ‘in a class of its own’ – initially referred to by the British Government as a “special regime.”

Articles 94 and 95 of the Treaty of Sevres, which the ICJ never discussed, completely undermines the ICJ’s argument that the Mandate for Palestine was a Class “A” Mandate. This erroneous claim renders the Court’s subsequent assertions baseless.

The ICJ attempts to overcome historical facts.

In paragraph 162 of the Advisory Opinion, the Court states:

“Since 1947, the year when General Assembly resolution 181 (II) was adopted and the Mandate for Palestine was terminated, there has been a succession of armed conflicts, acts of indiscriminate violence and repressive measures on the former mandated territory” [italics by author].

The Court attempts to ‘overcome’ historical legal facts by making the reader believe that adoption of Resolution 181 by the General Assembly in 1947 has present-day legal standing.33

The Court also seems to be confused when it states in paragraph 162 of the opinion that “the Mandate for Palestine was terminated” – with no substantiation [E.H., Unless the Court has confused the termination of the British Mandate over the territory of Palestine with the Mandate for Palestine document] as to how this could take place, since the Mandates of the League of Nations have a special status in international law and are considered to be “sacred trusts.” A trust – as in Article 80 of the UN Charter – does not end because the trustee fades away. The Mandate for Palestine, an international accord that was never amended, survived the British withdrawal in 1948 and is a binding legal instrument, valid to this day (See Chapter 9: “Territories – Legality of Jewish Settlement”).

The Court affirmation of the present validity of the Mandate for Palestine is evident in paragraph 49 of the Opinion:

“… It is the Court’s view that the construction of the wall must be deemed to be directly of concern to the United Nations. The responsibility of the United Nations in this matter also has its origin in the Mandate [for Palestine] …”

Addressing the Arab claim that Palestine was part of the territories promised to the Arabs in 1915 by Sir Henry McMahon, the British Government stated:

“We think it sufficient for the purposes of this Report to state that the British Government have never accepted the Arab case. When it was first formally presented by the Arab Delegation in London in 1922, the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Churchill) replied as follows:

“That letter [Sir H. McMahon’s letter of the 24 October 1915] is quoted as conveying the promise to the Sherif of Mecca to recognize and support the independence of the Arabs within the territories proposed by him. But this promise was given subject to a reservation made in the same letter, which excluded from its scope, among other territories, the portions of Syria lying to the west of the district of Damascus. This reservation has always been regarded by His Majesty’s Government as covering the vilayet of Beirut and the independent Sanjak of Jerusalem. The whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sir H. McMahon’s pledge.

“It was in the highest degree unfortunate that, in the exigencies of war, the British Government was unable to make their intention clear to the Sherif. Palestine, it will have been noticed, was not expressly mentioned in Sir Henry McMahon’s letter of the 24th October, 1915. Nor was any later reference made to it. In the further correspondence between Sir Henry McMahon and the Sherif the only areas relevant to the present discussion which were mentioned were the Vilayets of Aleppo and Beirut. The Sherif asserted that these Vilayets were purely Arab; and, when Sir Henry McMahon pointed out that French interests were involved, he replied that, while he did not recede from his full claims in the north, he did not wish to injure the alliance between Britain and France and would not ask ‘for what we now leave to France in Beirut and its coasts’ till after the War. There was no more bargaining over boundaries. It only remained for the British Government to supply the Sherif with the monthly subsidy in gold and the rifles, ammunition and foodstuffs he required for launching and sustaining the revolt”34 [italics by author].


9 posted on 12/12/2011 9:41:54 AM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: geraldmcg

Palestine as a people or state is as made up as kwanzaa is a holiday.


10 posted on 12/12/2011 9:47:48 AM PST by RJS1950 (The democrats are the "enemies foreign and domestic" cited in the federal oath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA

Very accurate.

Obama has been very instrumental in changing the mid east into a more potent anti Israel, anti American stronghold.... errrrr.... north African caliphate.

Israel will only be the testing ground in the fight against freedom and democracy, then it will be America.

Obama has been the great enabler. The Ghazi that lives in OUR White House!


11 posted on 12/12/2011 9:48:41 AM PST by himno hero (Obamas theme...Death to America...The crusaders will pay!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: geraldmcg
Newt is right about this, but given the politics of trying to broker a Middle East peace with a two state model, he shouldn't have said it. It was un-Presidential. This is the kind of thing that needs to come from aides or friendly pundits.

It just reinforces the image of hand-grenade Newt, ready to blow up at any moment.

12 posted on 12/12/2011 9:48:55 AM PST by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: geraldmcg

Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum both took Gingrich to task for his remarks …
Well, that sinks Santorum and marks him as most decidedly non-conservative.

Part of the GWOT should have been the total reversal of any "two-state solution", since that leaves a kernel of the old Ottoman Empire intact within the Levant. Only one state, and that of Israel. (Never mind other details, such as the fact that we should have shut down OPEC by force back in 1973.)
13 posted on 12/12/2011 9:58:07 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

None of them deserve my support. They ALL suck.
Some less than others.

Bachmann and Santorum are the only ones left the only one left who appear to have solid core values close to mine.

She is the only one that I really like as a person, but unfortunately she has these ‘ditz attacks’ that are troubling.

Santorum has disappointed me badly twice on policy matters, but his worst trait is that he seems like a very bright 15 year old boy; no ‘gravitas’.

One thing I’m starting to hate about people on these forums is that if you don’t support their candidate they accuse you of being a leftist plant.

Just because I’m tired of the GOP fielding nominees who suck a bit less than the democrat. Just because I want someone that I can admire, respect, and trust as the GOP nominee does not mean that I support 0bama.


14 posted on 12/12/2011 9:59:16 AM PST by LegendHasIt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker

but given the politics of trying to broker a Middle East peace with a two state model
Notice that our "allies" in Europe have been the biggest pushers for such a "solution" ever since it first failed back in 1947 when the UN tried to propose it. As soon as it failed back in 1947, the USA's policy should have been to abandon it and to assist Israel wholeheartedly against the Ottoman Caliphate types.
15 posted on 12/12/2011 10:01:01 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
That is a recipe for endless war. Our goal should be a Middle East where our Israeli allies can have a measure of relative peace and security.

That said, I don't see any near term prospects for that, given the present Palestinian demands and the division of the Pali government between Fatah and Hamas.

16 posted on 12/12/2011 10:21:55 AM PST by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker

That is a recipe for endless war
No. Pursuit of the so-called "two-state solution" has been the recipe for endless war and perpetuated same, since the "Palestinians" want all of the Levant and no Jewish state in their midst.

Our goal should be a Middle East where our Israeli allies can have a measure of relative peace and security
Then what I proposed is the only tenable means to achieve it.
17 posted on 12/12/2011 10:24:58 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: LegendHasIt

That’s all nice for academic philosophical discussions, but were taking about what is the best shot America has today with the realistic opitons available.

We need positive input, as sour grapes produce nothing.

There’s NOBODY, on or off the current slate that meets ALL of my criteria.

It’s important to determine the best we can do under the circumstances and taking our collective ball home is NOT the “BEST” we can do!


18 posted on 12/12/2011 10:42:23 AM PST by G Larry ("I dream of a day when a man is judged by the content of his Character.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

Yes, Jordan has plenty of room to take its Jordian-Palestinians but they don’t want a bunch of terrorists who with Obama’s help have been overthrowing any regime that is not radical Muslim. Jordan may be next to be overthrown and they don’t want that any more than the Saudis want to be overthrown. Who does? Ah, but Israel is fair game? Unfair. But who’s going to cry foul? Individuals. Because no country stands by her anymore.


19 posted on 12/12/2011 10:43:04 AM PST by geraldmcg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA

Yes, regardless of what anyone thinks of Newt, he did the right thing and boldly said it for the world to pick apart. Unfortunately he appears to be a bit shakey on his words and appears to want to backtrack a bit. Glad Michele Bachmann is staunchly pro-Israel and in agreement with Newt that the Palestinians are a fabricated people with no more right to Israel than Rush Limbaugh has to Russia just because the first syllable of Russia is Rush!


20 posted on 12/12/2011 10:45:59 AM PST by geraldmcg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LegendHasIt
"Just because I’m tired of the GOP fielding nominees who suck a bit less than the democrat. Just because I want someone that I can admire, respect, and trust as the GOP nominee does not mean that I support 0bama."

Yup, but you and I both know that "I'm holding out for the perfect conservative" or "I'll write in Ron Paul/Rick Perry/Richard Nixon, etc." or "I can't stand the terrible RINO ____" will be exactly the same as pulling the lever for Obie.

Don't give me that "I'm standing for principals" garbage - four more years of that Leftist twerp will all but guarantee the complete destruction of all that we stand for. Quit wasting our time.

21 posted on 12/12/2011 10:46:03 AM PST by Chainmail
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: geraldmcg

He is a History Prof.

And the answer is NO!!!!!!!!!


22 posted on 12/12/2011 11:05:10 AM PST by marty60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: geraldmcg
Even the PLO agrees with Newt:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism.

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa. While as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

(PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein, in a 1977 interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw.)

23 posted on 12/12/2011 11:20:25 AM PST by SC DOC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vendome

To underscore that, Arafat, the so-called Palestinian leader, was an Egyptian.


24 posted on 12/12/2011 11:26:28 AM PST by meatloaf (I've had it with recycling politicians in any way shape or form. Toss 'em out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson