From: HMAVERIK@aol.com
 
 

Contrary to what is stated on this board about the Holy Land/Israel/Palestine… Historians, Professors, Archeologists and famous people who visited the Ottoman Empire from the 1517 onward describe the situation differently… The Ottoman Empire ruled Palestine for 400 years, from 1517 to 1917. In December 1917, General Allenby entered Jerusalem as the commander of the British forces, which had conquered the Holy Land. Palestine, as such, had no distinct legal status under the Turks. Neither in the Ottoman period nor before had there ever existed an Arab state of Palestine, and the word Palestine is not of Arab origin.

It has always been common knowledge that within empires or large multi-ethnic states, certain regions have names but no precise geographic boundaries. For example, within the Ottoman Empire, there were the lands of Armenia and Syria to name a few. There was also Palestine. A multitude of scholarly books published before World War I explain that Palestine sat against the Mediterranean Sea, extended in the north to the Dan or to the Litani River, southward to the Negev or to the Sinai, and eastward into the desert beyond the Jordan River. It was consistently observed by geographers that the Jordan River ran through Palestine and no one ever said it constituted its eastern boundary. The great eleventh edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, which was published in 1911 and is available in many good libraries, still is useful as a reference on this point because it makes it clear that Palestine refers to the region on both sides of the Jordan River but it notes that the eastern boundary of Palestine on the far side of the Jordan is not defined.

The necessity to define all of Palestine's boundaries with precision did not arise until the victorious Allied Powers in the aftermath of World War I undertook to assign responsibilities for the governance of the regions they had conquered in the War. The French were to have one Middle Eastern mandate, for Syria, and the British two-one for Mesopotamia, now known as Iraq, and one for Palestine. The delineation of the boundaries of Palestine was accomplished over many months as a result of numerous negotiations and conferences among the British, French, Zionist leaders, Arab leaders, and others. As we shall see, the documentary record is clear that the term Palestine in the Mandate comprises the territory that is today the Kingdom of Jordan as well as the territory west of the Jordan River which Israel now controls.

It has been enormously advantageous for Israel's enemies to define Palestine as only the territory west of the Jordan River. They have succeeded to such a great extent in gaining acceptance for this incorrect definition because few people bother to plunge into the record and those few who do often emerge in confusion. A highly abbreviated course in the history of the Palestine Mandate is hereby presented in the hopes of facilitating clarification of the issue.

As a reflection of the evolving liberalism which dominated political circles in the West, the Allied Powers, during World War 1, decided that they would not simply incorporate into their empires the lands which they might acquire in the war, but would hold those lands in trust for their current and future inhabitants. Paragraphs one and two of the Mandate Section (Article 22) of the League of Nations Covenant, which was dated June 1919, make the point.

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 people 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.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

The Palestine Mandate is rooted in the famous Balfour Declaration whom the British government issued during World War 1, on November 2nd, 1917, in the form of a letter from the British Foreign Minister to Lord Rothschild. Its operative language is:

His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for Jewish people, and will use their best endeavor to facilitate the achievement of this object, 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.

It bears noting that the allusion to political rights in the declaration is in reference only to the status of Jews outside of Palestine. The declaration does not create or recognize political, as opposed to civil and religious, rights of the non-Jewish communities in Palestine. (This is part (1) on the subject matter)

In the last paragraph in Ottoman Empire (1) we discussed the Palestine Mandate
declaration…

The declaration was initially a mere statement of British government policy.
It became central to the legal history of the Arab-Israeli conflict only when,
after the War, Britain insisted, successfully, that it become the foundation
of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.  The Mandate was drafted and
issued at the San Remo Conference of the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers
in April, 1920.  The main business of the San Remo Conference was
to produce the text of a peace treaty which could be imposed on the defeated
Ottoman Empire.  A few months before, the Allies had imposed the Treaty of
Versailles on Germany, and it was now the Ottoman Empire's turn.  Agreement on
the terms of the mandates, respectively, for Palestine and Mesopotamia to
Britain, and for Syria to France, was required as a preliminary to the
conclusion of the peace treaty with Turkey.  In issuing these mandates, in
April, 1920, the Allies were performing a legal act similar to the signing of
an ordinary trust agreement.  Such an agreement sets the rules governing the
relationships among the creator of the trust, the trustee, and the
beneficiaries.  The trust may not come into existence until title to the trust
property is transferred to it, but if one expects such a transfer to occur in
the near future, it is necessary to have the trust instrument in order.
And it was all the more important for Britain and France to have their Middle
East mandates issued promptly because they happened to have possession of the
trust property, that is, Palestine, Mesopotamia, and Syria, even though the
transfer of legal title had not yet occurred.

The mandates were issued before the Allies had concluded agreements on all of
the boundaries of the mandated territories.  The preamble of the Palestine
Mandate states:

Whereas the Principal Allied powers have agreed.... to entrust to a Mandatory
... the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged
to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them:
(Emphasis added)

There was never any question that Britain's two mandates-for Palestine and
Mesopotamia-were to be geographically contiguous.  But Britain had not decided
by 1920 where in the desert east of the Jordan River the boundary line between
eastern Palestine and Mesopotamia should be drawn.

Before we continue our chronology of events, let us examine what the Palestine
Mandate was about that is, what did it mandate or order to be done?

The principal mission of the mandatory authority was to implement the Balfour
Declaration.  Pointing this out surprises many people, including many so
called Middle East specialists.  Many do not realize that the Balfour
Declaration is incorporated expressly in the League of Nations Mandate.

The first clause of the Mandate's preamble, as noted earlier, states that the
Allies have agreed to put the administration of Palestine under a mandatory
power.  The second and third clauses are as follows:

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, or the rights and political status
enjoyed by Jews in any other country;

Then it states:

Whereas 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 ;

It is important to consider the basis on which the Allies here justify the
requirement to establish the Jewish National Home in Palestine.  The basis is,
"the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine." Notice that
while the Allies expressly grant various powers to the Mandatory, they do not
presume to grant the Jews the right to a national home in Palestine.  That
right derives not from the Allied Powers, but predates the Mandate and
derives from the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine.
The Allies state only that, through the Mandate, they are recognizing this
pre-existing right of the Jewish people, which arises from Jewish history.
Israel's enemies often say that the League of Nations or the United Nations
gave Palestine to the Jews.  The implication is that the international
community, having granted the Jews their rights to Israel, can declare those
rights forfeit.  It should suffice to point out in reply that the relevant
legal documents and, in particular, the Mandate, contain language about
recognition of Jewish rights but it contains no granting clause. (This is part
(2) on the subject matter)
 
 

Bibliography: -

Douglas J. Feith, served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense and as Middle East Specialist on the National Security Council Staff during the Reagan Administration.