My letter published in the Indypendent - 10 March 2010
One state will never work.
Firstly it denies Jews the national homeland in Palestine promised to them by the League of Nations and the United Nations.
Secondly Jews and Arabs lived together in Palestine for 70 years until 1948 - years that were marked by bitterness, confrontation, constant assaults and killing of the Jews on many occasions such as 1920,1929 and 1936 as they then were the minority population with little to defend themselves. They might now be the majority but the level of civil disobedience shown by the current Arab population in Israel does not inspire any confidence that the two peoples can co-exist on a friendly and peaceful basis.
The only solution is the separation of the Jewish and Arab populations in the West Bank. This can best be achieved by Jordan and Israel dividing sovereignty of the West Bank between their respective States. The West Bank Arabs will become Jordanian citizens again as they were between 1950-1988, the Jews will remain as Israeli citizens and no one need leave his current home.
Mandate for Palestine - July 24, 1922
Jordan is 77% of former Palestine - Israel, the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza comprise 23%.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Is Israel 78% - or only 17% - of historic and mandate Palestine?
[My letter published in The Indypendent - 9 March 2010]
Peaceful debate and conflict resolution can only succeed if those involved first agree on the problem that needs to be resolved.
The problem is the resolution of sovereignty in the West Bank between Jewish and Arab claimants.
The Jewish claimant is Israel and the Arab claimant is the Palestinian Authority. In determining a resolution to this problem there first needs to be agreement on the following facts:
Once these facts are agreed then possible solutions can be discussed.
No discussion can possibly begin to reach any agreement whilst Alex posits the following statement:
This statement rules out any hope of a settlement which would lead to the division of the West Bank between Arabs and Jews by denying the Jews any rights to claim sovereignty of at least part of the West Bank under their legal entitlement pursuant to the Mandate.
This is why any negotiations with the Palestinian Authority have failed and will continue to fail.
Peaceful debate and conflict resolution can only succeed if those involved first agree on the problem that needs to be resolved.
The problem is the resolution of sovereignty in the West Bank between Jewish and Arab claimants.
The Jewish claimant is Israel and the Arab claimant is the Palestinian Authority. In determining a resolution to this problem there first needs to be agreement on the following facts:
1. Israel comprises 17% of the Mandate for Palestine
2. Jordan comprises 78% of the Mandate for Palestine
3. The West Bank comprises 4% of the Mandate for Palestine
4. Gaza comprises 1% of the Mandate for Palestine
5 Under Article 6 of the Mandate and article 80 of the UN Charter the Jewish people have acquired a vested right in international law to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in all or part of the West Bank and Gaza
Once these facts are agreed then possible solutions can be discussed.
No discussion can possibly begin to reach any agreement whilst Alex posits the following statement:
“Palestinians will not meet directly with Israel as long as Israel continues building illegal Jewish-only settlements on occupied Palestinian land, which is in direct violation of numerous United Nations resolutions and the Geneva Conventions ”
This statement rules out any hope of a settlement which would lead to the division of the West Bank between Arabs and Jews by denying the Jews any rights to claim sovereignty of at least part of the West Bank under their legal entitlement pursuant to the Mandate.
This is why any negotiations with the Palestinian Authority have failed and will continue to fail.
The Mandate for Palestine and Article 80 of the UN Charter
[My letter published in The Daily Cougar - 13 March 2010]
You want some legal opinions on Article 80 then here they are:
1. The International Court of Justice in an advisory opinion on the effect of article 80 in the Namibia case on 21 June 1971:
Strange that the International Court never took the time to look at this decision in 2004 until you understand the UN never raised the Mandate or article 80 of its own Charter when seeking the Court’s advisory opinion on Israel’s security barrier. Cover up or ignorance? Either way it stinks.
2. Professor Paul Riebenfeld:
3. Judge El Araby of the International Court of Justice in regard to the legal status of the West Bank in the Israeli security barrier advisory opinion:
John
Now I have given you some sources dealing with the Mandate and article 80 – you need to give me your sources refuting the relevance of those two pieces of international law.
The article in the Independent that you cited [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/the-big-question-what-are-israeli-settlements-and-why-are-they-coming-under-pressure-1692515.html] does not deal with the Mandate and article 80. I will bet the reporter never heard of either. I doubt if the Israeli lawyer quoted had ever heard of or been aware of the Mandate and article 80.
When you can pinpoint some legal authority who has considered the Mandate and article 80 and come to a contrary view to the legal authorities I have cited above, then maybe there can be a further dialogue between us.
But until you do, please be open minded enough to at least acknowledge that there is an argument in international law that those Jewish settlements in the West Bank may be indeed legal.
You want some legal opinions on Article 80 then here they are:
1. The International Court of Justice in an advisory opinion on the effect of article 80 in the Namibia case on 21 June 1971:
“When the League of Nations was dissolved, the raison d’etre and original object of these obligations remained. Since their fulfillment did not depend on the existence of the League, they could not be brought to an end merely because the supervisory organ had ceased to exist. … The International Court of Justice has consistently recognized that the Mandate survived the demise of the League [of Nations.”
Strange that the International Court never took the time to look at this decision in 2004 until you understand the UN never raised the Mandate or article 80 of its own Charter when seeking the Court’s advisory opinion on Israel’s security barrier. Cover up or ignorance? Either way it stinks.
2. Professor Paul Riebenfeld:
"The League of Nations was officially liquidated in April 1946 and with it the Mandate system. The continued validity,however, of rights derived from a Mandate after the expiry of the League and the Mandate system, was spelled out in the Charter of the United Nations in its Article 80, which in the literature is often referred to as “the Palestine clause”. The reason is that this provision which is part of Chapter XII, dealing with International Trusteeship, was drafted as a result of Zionist representations at the San Francisco Conference in order to protect, in addition to the existing rights of any states, also those of “any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.” It mentions “peoples”. The rights referred to were in particular those of the Jewish people as the beneficiary of the Palestine Mandate, in an international system based on the membership of States”
3. Judge El Araby of the International Court of Justice in regard to the legal status of the West Bank in the Israeli security barrier advisory opinion:
“,,, the international legal status of the Palestinian Territory merits more comprehensive treatment”…
“A historical survey is relevant to the question posed by the General Assembly, for it serves as the background to understanding the legal status of the Palestinian Territory on the one hand and underlines the special and continuing responsibility of the General Assembly on the other. This may appear as academic, without relevance to the present events. The present is however determined by the accumulation of past events and no reasonable and fair concern for the future can possibly disregard a firm grasp of past events. In particular, when on one or more than one occasion, the rule of law was consistently sidestepped….”
“The point of departure, or one can say in legal jargon, the critical date, is the League of Nations Mandate which was entrusted to Great Britain”
John
Now I have given you some sources dealing with the Mandate and article 80 – you need to give me your sources refuting the relevance of those two pieces of international law.
The article in the Independent that you cited [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/the-big-question-what-are-israeli-settlements-and-why-are-they-coming-under-pressure-1692515.html] does not deal with the Mandate and article 80. I will bet the reporter never heard of either. I doubt if the Israeli lawyer quoted had ever heard of or been aware of the Mandate and article 80.
When you can pinpoint some legal authority who has considered the Mandate and article 80 and come to a contrary view to the legal authorities I have cited above, then maybe there can be a further dialogue between us.
But until you do, please be open minded enough to at least acknowledge that there is an argument in international law that those Jewish settlements in the West Bank may be indeed legal.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Expert Calls For Fresh Ideas In Palestine Talks
[My letter published in Arab News - 6 March 2010]
A fresh idea that needs to be considered is the replacement of the Palestinian Authority by Jordan as Israel's negotiating partner.
Jordan and Israel are the two successor states to the Mandate for Palestine and are uniquely placed to determine the division of sovereignty of the West Bank between their two respective States.
In addition the 1994 signed peace treaty between Jordan and Israel already sets out the manner in which the issues of water,refugees and Jerusalem is to be resolved.
No solution will completely suit either Jews or Arabs but the redrawing of the international boundary between Jordan and Israel in direct face to face to face negotiations will ensure that:
16 years of ineffectual negotiations with the Palestinian Authority have failed - and will continue to fail - to yield results.
The prospects of reunifying the Arab populated areas of the West Bank with Jordan as existed between 1948-1967 offers the only possible realistic solution to end the conflict between Jewish and Arab claims to sovereignty in the West Bank.
A fresh idea that needs to be considered is the replacement of the Palestinian Authority by Jordan as Israel's negotiating partner.
Jordan and Israel are the two successor states to the Mandate for Palestine and are uniquely placed to determine the division of sovereignty of the West Bank between their two respective States.
In addition the 1994 signed peace treaty between Jordan and Israel already sets out the manner in which the issues of water,refugees and Jerusalem is to be resolved.
No solution will completely suit either Jews or Arabs but the redrawing of the international boundary between Jordan and Israel in direct face to face to face negotiations will ensure that:
1. The West Bank Arabs will regain Jordanian citizenship they enjoyed between 1950 - 1988 and will be freed from Israeli occupation.
2. No Jew or Arab will be forced to move from his current home in the West Bank
16 years of ineffectual negotiations with the Palestinian Authority have failed - and will continue to fail - to yield results.
The prospects of reunifying the Arab populated areas of the West Bank with Jordan as existed between 1948-1967 offers the only possible realistic solution to end the conflict between Jewish and Arab claims to sovereignty in the West Bank.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)