From: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast
Subject: Re: Israeli Expulsion of 418 Palestinians
Date: 22 Jan 1993 07:04:42 GMT
Organization: Australian National University
Distribution: world
Reply-To: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au
NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.203.23.70

In article 2289@blue.cis.pitt.edu, rdtst+@pitt.edu (Richard D Thorne) writes:
>Brendan:

>   > (a) Neither the British, nor the League, nor the Zionist Organization
>   >     publically equated "Jewish National Home" and "sovereign Jewish
>   >     state".  The equation is in your mind only.  Never read the Churchill 
>   >     White Paper of 1922?
>   > (b) It reads IN Palestine, not IN ALL OF Palestine, and it does that
>   >     with deliberate intent.  
     
>    "When it is asked what is meant by the development of the 
>    Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it 
>    is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the 
>    inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further 
>    development of the existing Jewish community, with the 
>    assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it 
>    may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole 
>    may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a 
>    pride.  But in order that this community should have the best 
>    prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity 
>    for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential 
>    that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on 
>    sufferance.  That is the reason why it is necessary that the 
>    existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be 
>    internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally 
>    recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.
>          This, then is the interpretation which His Majesty's 
>    Government place upon the Declaration of 1917, and, so 
>    understood, the Secretary of State is of opinion that it does not 
>    contain or imply anything which need cause either alarm to the 
>    Arab population of Palestine or disappointment to the Jews."
>
>         White Paper June 1922

Yes, that's what I mean.

>     A simple chronology follows:
>
>           1)   White Paper  June 1922
>           2)   Mandate for Palestine confirmed by the League Council   July 
>                  24, 1922
>           3)   Article 25 of Palestine Mandate.  Memorandum by the British 
>                 Representative where Transjordan is split off from Palestine.
>                 Approved by the Council on Sept. 16, 1922.

Hang on.  If you are saying that Article 25 dates from Sept 1922 I think
you are wrong.  I think it is considerably earlier, but I can't find a 
precise statement of that right now.  Certainly the British intention
of seeking separate treatment of Transjordan became firm in early 1921.
The memorandum approved on 16 Sept 1922 did not change the Mandate terms;
rather the Council ruled that certain British proposals were permitted
by the Mandate terms.

Let me extend your chronolgy a little:

            4)   Palestine Mandate becomes formally operative, Sept 29, 1923.

>    The following points should be clear:  1) The Mandate, and its terms, 
>    were an international obligation on Britain.   2)  Britain needed to seek 
>    approval of the League Council in order to modify the boundaries of the 
>    Mandate.  3)  Unilateral British proclamations such as the White Paper 
>    of 1922 had no legal effect until approval by the League Council.

That is all true.  I'm not sure what your point is, though.  I don't 
see any ruling from the League that disputes the interpretations given
by the 1922 White Paper.

>  As I have stated in a previous post, the White Paper of 1939 was invalid.  
>  The Mandate Commission stated that it was not in accordance with the 
>  interpretation which the Commission had placed upon the Palestine 
>  Mandate (see Oppenheim's International Law, p. 218 Vol. 1,  8th edition).

Yes, this was passed by a four-three majority.  At the same meeting,
the Council unanimously suggested that Britain reconsider the proposals 
made by the Council after the 1937 Peel Commission (which recommended 
partition into independent Arab and Jewish states).  Those proposals
were for cantonisation (I don't have details of this one) and for
the partition into two separate mandates (one Arab and one Jewish)
that would become independent in time. [C. Upthegrove, Empire by Mandate, 
p161].  This illustrates my point that the Council did not regard 
"a Jewish National Home in Palestine" to imply "a Jewish State in all 
of Palestine".  Maybe you are not claiming it did.  Perhaps you should 
state again what you are trying to establish by this thread; I've lost track.

I deleted all insults.
     
>         Richard Thorne rdt@med.pitt.edu

Brendan.