The Qur'an 17:104 - states the land belongs to the Jewish people
Palestine Boundaries 1833–1947
Resumé
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The aim of the present work is to provide, in a single source of reference, copies of those historical documents which cumulatively defined the geographical and political limits of Palestine up to the end of the British Mandate in 1947. The work is intended to establish an objective historical base, taken from the records, for understanding the evolution of the territorial idea of Palestine before the modern era.
The collection is also intended to demonstrate the extent and limits of responsibility, particularly British and French, for territorial decisions, and likewise the extent of solid international agreement on the delimitation of Palestine boundaries in the past.
Historical Overview
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Ottoman times, no political entity called Palestine existed. After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War, European boundary makers began to take greater interest in defining territorial limits for Palestine. Only since the 1920s has Palestine had formally delimited boundaries, though these have remained subject to repeated change and a source of bitter dispute.
The southern boundary (with Egypt) is the subject of Volume I of this collection. In the Ottoman Sultan´s firman (decree) of 1841, the first map appeared showing the boundaries of the area under Mohammed Ali Pasha´s rule. The eastern frontier of Egypt was shown as a straight line drawn from El Arish to Suez. East of this line was the Sinai Peninsula, almost waterless and inhabited only by a few Bedouin tribes. In 1892, however, with the possibility of Turkish troops being stationed in the Sinai Peninsula, a heated exchange of diplomatic correspondence took place between Cairo, London, and Constantinople. An administrative line between El Arish to the Gulf of Aqaba was agreed upon but no legal frontier was defined between Egypt and Ottoman territories. Stormy negotiations ensued in 1905 when the Sultan made a more determined effort to occupy the Peninsula. The Aqaba Incident brought the British and the Ottoman Empires to the brink of war in 1906.
The first volume includes a selection from the personal papers of Mr W E Jennings-Bramly, who at the time was a Frontier Administration Officer and was ordered to occupy Naqb el Aqaba with a small detachment of Egyptian troops. His papers provide an on-the-spot description of events and enhance this documentary collection for those interested in the delimitation of the boundary which today is the accepted frontier between Israel and Egypt.
The Anglo-French Accord
Volumes II and III provide an interesting overview of the Anglo-French debate over the northern boundary of Palestine. During the course of the First World War, the British and the French governments anticipated the defeat of the Turks and in the famous Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916, secretly divided the Ottoman Empire between themselves, the Russians and the Italians. However, British interest and political aspirations called for a rapid revision of the Sykes-Picot partition. Within less than a year of concluding the agreement, the government set out to modify the provisions concerning the status of Palestine.
In December 1918 the British Prime Minister Lloyd George secured French acceptance that Palestine should come under British rather than international administration. The records show how the following period of intense and sometimes bitter negotiations between British and French policy makers, with the Zionist Organization as an interested pressure group and virtual participant in the process came close to jeopardising the post-war peace settlement.
Zionist influence on boundaries
The controversy surrounding the subsequent negotiations was fuelled by conflicting wartime promises to the Zionists and to the Arabs. The Balfour Declaration of November 2nd, 1917, concerning the establishment of a Jewish National Home, formalised an alliance with the politically influential Zionist movement.
It was a matter of urgent importance to the Zionists that Palestine should acquire a defensible boundary which would circumscribe sufficient surface water supplies for the successful development of a Jewish agriculture. But while Lloyd George dedared that Palestine should be defined in accordance to its Biblical limits "from Dan to Beersheba", Dr Weizmann lobbied to extend the boundaries further north and east for economic and security considerations.
Britain´s promise to grant King Husayn of the Hedjaz an independent Arab Kingdom (Husayn-McMahon correspondence 1915-1916) in return for leading the Arab Revolt against the Ottomans during the First World War was increasingly compromised. Not only did the Hashemite states of Transjordan, Syria and later Iraq fall under British administration after the decision to apply the Mandate system to the territories was taken at San Remo in 1920, but Palestine, which was arguably promised to Husayn in 1915, was excluded from any Hashemite influence.
The eastern frontier with Transjordan
The eastern frontier was formally established in 1922 when the final draft of the Mandate for Palestine and Transjordan was approved by the League of Nations. This instrument provided the British with the authority to exclude the territory east of the Jordan river from those provisions concerning a National Home for the Jewish people. The British decided to administer Transjordan separately, leaving the Jordan river as the effective eastern boundary of Palestine.
Back to top
Documentary Importance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Documents were selected in the main from the Foreign Office and Colonial Office series of files in the National Archives, London. Supplementary material from official British sources comes from the India Office Library and Records, London. A selection of key papers is included from the Archives Diplomatiques, Ministère des Affaires Etrangères, Quai d´Orsay, Paris. The collection also makes use of a good part of the Jennings-Bramly private papers lodged with the Royal Geographical Society, London. This collection was edited by Ms Patricia Toye whose sudden death in October 1994 is a loss felt by all researchers and historians of the boundaries of the region. Volume I includes a historical preface by Ms Toye and a scholarly introduction by J.C. Hurewitz, Professor of Government Emeritus at Columbia University, New York.
Back to top
Contents Outline
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Included in Volume 1
Papers relating to the Arrangement made between the Porte and Mehemet Ali in 1833.
Communications with Mehemet Ali in 1838.
London Convention for the Pacification of the Levant 1840.
Memorandum relating to the Firman of 1841.
Summary of Turco-Egytian frontier negotiations, 1892-1906.
Correspondence respecting the Turco-Egyptian frontier in the Sinai Peninsula recapitulating the main phrases through which the Turco-Egyptian frontier question passed from its origin early in January 1906 to the presentation of a note to the Ottoman Government to comply with the British demands to evacuate Tab and to the delimitation of the frontier.
Private papers of Mr W E Jennings-Bramly, Frontier Administration Officer in the Sinai Peninsula, 1902-1947.
Demarcation of the Turco-Egyptian frontier.
Report on the 1906 Delimitation of the Turco-Egyptian boundary between the Vilayet of the Hedjaz and the Sinai Peninsula, 1907.
Future and status of the Sinai Peninsula, 1946.
Included in Volume 2
Secret war time arrangements among the Entente powers for the partition of the Ottoman Empire 1915-1918.
Constantinople Agreement, 4 March-10 April 1915.
Italo-Entente Secret Agreement, 26 April 1915.
Sykes-Picot Agreement, April-October 1916.
Saint-Jean de Maurienne Agreement, April-September 1917.
Husayn-McMahon Correspondence, July 1915-March 1916.
The Balfour Declaration, 2 November 1917.
De Bunsen Committee Report on British desiderata in the Middle East,June 1915.
Memorandum on French and Arab claims in the Middle East, December 1918.
Peace Conference memorandum respecting Palestine by Sir E Richards, January 1919.
Zionist Organisations´ memorandum to the Supreme Council at the Paris Peace Conference, 3 February 1919.
Aide-memoire in regard to the occupation of Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia pending the decision in regard to Mandates, 13 September 1919.
Anglo-French post-war negotiations over the boundaries of Palestine 1919-1920 and the revision of the Sykes-Picot line.
Included in Volume 3
Anglo-French negoitiations regarding the northern frontier, November 1920.
Delimitation of frontier between Palestine and Syria, March-July 1921.
The Cairo Conference of 1921.
Churchill Memorandum, 1 July 1922.
Settlement of Bon Voisinage Agreement between Palestine and Syria, March-July 1921.
Mandate for Palestine, 24 July 1923.
Memorandum on the strategical importance of Palestine to Britain, July 1923.
Anglo-French Convention, 23 December 1923.
Agreement between the United Kingdom and Transjordan, March 1928.
Extract from memorandum on the submission of frontiers of mandated territories to the League of Nations, April 1932.
Agreement between Palestine and Syria and Lebanon amending the Agreement of 2 February 1926 regarding the frontier questions, 3 November 1938.
Treaty of Alliance between the United Kingdom and the Amir of Transjordan, 22 March 1946.
Notes on the legal status of Palestine and the termination of the Mandate.
Back to top
Maps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Map of the Sinai boundary, 1906.
Map of Aqaba-Rafah, showing in pencil line the line described by Captain Owen and the Turkish Commissioners, 1906.
Map of the Sinai boundary annexed to the 1 October 1906 Agreement.
Map of northern Palestine and adjacent area showing the frontiers between British and French spheres of influence 1921.
Map showing proposed boundary between Jordan and Palestine, 1919.
Map showing boundaries of Palestine in the French proposals of March and June 1920, the Sykes-Picot line and the Meinertzhagen line.
Map showing Lebanese boundary according to Ms.Berthelot's proposal of 11 March 1920.
Map showing boundary between Syria and Palestine signed by Lt.Col. Paulet for French Government in 1922 and removed from the Commission's report on the boundary FO 93/292.
War Office map of Syria showing the international boundaries of 1914, 1918.
War Office base map of Palestine, 1923.
Colonial Office map showing Palestine and adjacent area with proposed frontier roughly sketched, 1921.
For full list and references see Maplist.
Back to top
Related Titles:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arabian Boundaries 1853–1960
Arabian Boundaries 1961–1965
Arabian Boundary Disputes – Historical, Political And Legal Dossier
Arabian Treaties 1600–1960
Israel: Boundary Disputes With Arab Neighbours 1946–1964
Minorities In The Middle East: Druze Communities 1840–1974
Minorities In The Middle East: Jewish Communities In Arab Countries 1841–1974
Minorities In The Middle East: Religious Communities In Jerusalem 1843–1974
Palestine And Transjordan Administration Reports 1918–1948
Political Diaries Of The Arab World: Palestine And Jordan 1920–1965
Records Of Jerusalem 1917–1971
Records Of Jordan 1919–1965
Survey of Western And Eastern Palestine 1882-1888
Zionist Movement And The Foundation Of Israel 1839–1972, The
Resumé
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The aim of the present work is to provide, in a single source of reference, copies of those historical documents which cumulatively defined the geographical and political limits of Palestine up to the end of the British Mandate in 1947. The work is intended to establish an objective historical base, taken from the records, for understanding the evolution of the territorial idea of Palestine before the modern era.
The collection is also intended to demonstrate the extent and limits of responsibility, particularly British and French, for territorial decisions, and likewise the extent of solid international agreement on the delimitation of Palestine boundaries in the past.
Back to top
Historical Overview
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Ottoman times, no political entity called Palestine existed. After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War, European boundary makers began to take greater interest in defining territorial limits for Palestine. Only since the 1920s has Palestine had formally delimited boundaries, though these have remained subject to repeated change and a source of bitter dispute.
The southern boundary (with Egypt) is the subject of Volume I of this collection. In the Ottoman Sultan´s firman (decree) of 1841, the first map appeared showing the boundaries of the area under Mohammed Ali Pasha´s rule. The eastern frontier of Egypt was shown as a straight line drawn from El Arish to Suez. East of this line was the Sinai Peninsula, almost waterless and inhabited only by a few Bedouin tribes. In 1892, however, with the possibility of Turkish troops being stationed in the Sinai Peninsula, a heated exchange of diplomatic correspondence took place between Cairo, London, and Constantinople. An administrative line between El Arish to the Gulf of Aqaba was agreed upon but no legal frontier was defined between Egypt and Ottoman territories. Stormy negotiations ensued in 1905 when the Sultan made a more determined effort to occupy the Peninsula. The Aqaba Incident brought the British and the Ottoman Empires to the brink of war in 1906.
The first volume includes a selection from the personal papers of Mr W E Jennings-Bramly, who at the time was a Frontier Administration Officer and was ordered to occupy Naqb el Aqaba with a small detachment of Egyptian troops. His papers provide an on-the-spot description of events and enhance this documentary collection for those interested in the delimitation of the boundary which today is the accepted frontier between Israel and Egypt.
The Anglo-French Accord
Volumes II and III provide an interesting overview of the Anglo-French debate over the northern boundary of Palestine. During the course of the First World War, the British and the French governments anticipated the defeat of the Turks and in the famous Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916, secretly divided the Ottoman Empire between themselves, the Russians and the Italians. However, British interest and political aspirations called for a rapid revision of the Sykes-Picot partition. Within less than a year of concluding the agreement, the government set out to modify the provisions concerning the status of Palestine.
In December 1918 the British Prime Minister Lloyd George secured French acceptance that Palestine should come under British rather than international administration. The records show how the following period of intense and sometimes bitter negotiations between British and French policy makers, with the Zionist Organization as an interested pressure group and virtual participant in the process came close to jeopardising the post-war peace settlement.
Zionist influence on boundaries
The controversy surrounding the subsequent negotiations was fuelled by conflicting wartime promises to the Zionists and to the Arabs. The Balfour Declaration of November 2nd, 1917, concerning the establishment of a Jewish National Home, formalised an alliance with the politically influential Zionist movement.
It was a matter of urgent importance to the Zionists that Palestine should acquire a defensible boundary which would circumscribe sufficient surface water supplies for the successful development of a Jewish agriculture. But while Lloyd George dedared that Palestine should be defined in accordance to its Biblical limits "from Dan to Beersheba", Dr Weizmann lobbied to extend the boundaries further north and east for economic and security considerations.
Britain´s promise to grant King Husayn of the Hedjaz an independent Arab Kingdom (Husayn-McMahon correspondence 1915-1916) in return for leading the Arab Revolt against the Ottomans during the First World War was increasingly compromised. Not only did the Hashemite states of Transjordan, Syria and later Iraq fall under British administration after the decision to apply the Mandate system to the territories was taken at San Remo in 1920, but Palestine, which was arguably promised to Husayn in 1915, was excluded from any Hashemite influence.
The eastern frontier with Transjordan
The eastern frontier was formally established in 1922 when the final draft of the Mandate for Palestine and Transjordan was approved by the League of Nations. This instrument provided the British with the authority to exclude the territory east of the Jordan river from those provisions concerning a National Home for the Jewish people. The British decided to administer Transjordan separately, leaving the Jordan river as the effective eastern boundary of Palestine.
Back to top
Documentary Importance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Documents were selected in the main from the Foreign Office and Colonial Office series of files in the National Archives, London. Supplementary material from official British sources comes from the India Office Library and Records, London. A selection of key papers is included from the Archives Diplomatiques, Ministère des Affaires Etrangères, Quai d´Orsay, Paris. The collection also makes use of a good part of the Jennings-Bramly private papers lodged with the Royal Geographical Society, London. This collection was edited by Ms Patricia Toye whose sudden death in October 1994 is a loss felt by all researchers and historians of the boundaries of the region. Volume I includes a historical preface by Ms Toye and a scholarly introduction by J.C. Hurewitz, Professor of Government Emeritus at Columbia University, New York.
Back to top
Contents Outline
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Included in Volume 1
Papers relating to the Arrangement made between the Porte and Mehemet Ali in 1833.
Communications with Mehemet Ali in 1838.
London Convention for the Pacification of the Levant 1840.
Memorandum relating to the Firman of 1841.
Summary of Turco-Egytian frontier negotiations, 1892-1906.
Correspondence respecting the Turco-Egyptian frontier in the Sinai Peninsula recapitulating the main phrases through which the Turco-Egyptian frontier question passed from its origin early in January 1906 to the presentation of a note to the Ottoman Government to comply with the British demands to evacuate Tab and to the delimitation of the frontier.
Private papers of Mr W E Jennings-Bramly, Frontier Administration Officer in the Sinai Peninsula, 1902-1947.
Demarcation of the Turco-Egyptian frontier.
Report on the 1906 Delimitation of the Turco-Egyptian boundary between the Vilayet of the Hedjaz and the Sinai Peninsula, 1907.
Future and status of the Sinai Peninsula, 1946.
Included in Volume 2
Secret war time arrangements among the Entente powers for the partition of the Ottoman Empire 1915-1918.
Constantinople Agreement, 4 March-10 April 1915.
Italo-Entente Secret Agreement, 26 April 1915.
Sykes-Picot Agreement, April-October 1916.
Saint-Jean de Maurienne Agreement, April-September 1917.
Husayn-McMahon Correspondence, July 1915-March 1916.
The Balfour Declaration, 2 November 1917.
De Bunsen Committee Report on British desiderata in the Middle East,June 1915.
Memorandum on French and Arab claims in the Middle East, December 1918.
Peace Conference memorandum respecting Palestine by Sir E Richards, January 1919.
Zionist Organisations´ memorandum to the Supreme Council at the Paris Peace Conference, 3 February 1919.
Aide-memoire in regard to the occupation of Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia pending the decision in regard to Mandates, 13 September 1919.
Anglo-French post-war negotiations over the boundaries of Palestine 1919-1920 and the revision of the Sykes-Picot line.
Included in Volume 3
Anglo-French negoitiations regarding the northern frontier, November 1920.
Delimitation of frontier between Palestine and Syria, March-July 1921.
The Cairo Conference of 1921.
Churchill Memorandum, 1 July 1922.
Settlement of Bon Voisinage Agreement between Palestine and Syria, March-July 1921.
Mandate for Palestine, 24 July 1923.
Memorandum on the strategical importance of Palestine to Britain, July 1923.
Anglo-French Convention, 23 December 1923.
Agreement between the United Kingdom and Transjordan, March 1928.
Extract from memorandum on the submission of frontiers of mandated territories to the League of Nations, April 1932.
Agreement between Palestine and Syria and Lebanon amending the Agreement of 2 February 1926 regarding the frontier questions, 3 November 1938.
Treaty of Alliance between the United Kingdom and the Amir of Transjordan, 22 March 1946.
Notes on the legal status of Palestine and the termination of the Mandate.
Back to top
Maps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Map of the Sinai boundary, 1906.
Map of Aqaba-Rafah, showing in pencil line the line described by Captain Owen and the Turkish Commissioners, 1906.
Map of the Sinai boundary annexed to the 1 October 1906 Agreement.
Map of northern Palestine and adjacent area showing the frontiers between British and French spheres of influence 1921.
Map showing proposed boundary between Jordan and Palestine, 1919.
Map showing boundaries of Palestine in the French proposals of March and June 1920, the Sykes-Picot line and the Meinertzhagen line.
Map showing Lebanese boundary according to Ms.Berthelot's proposal of 11 March 1920.
Map showing boundary between Syria and Palestine signed by Lt.Col. Paulet for French Government in 1922 and removed from the Commission's report on the boundary FO 93/292.
War Office map of Syria showing the international boundaries of 1914, 1918.
War Office base map of Palestine, 1923.
Colonial Office map showing Palestine and adjacent area with proposed frontier roughly sketched, 1921.
For full list and references see Maplist.
Back to top
Related Titles:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arabian Boundaries 1853–1960
Arabian Boundaries 1961–1965
Arabian Boundary Disputes – Historical, Political And Legal Dossier
Arabian Treaties 1600–1960
Israel: Boundary Disputes With Arab Neighbours 1946–1964
Minorities In The Middle East: Druze Communities 1840–1974
Minorities In The Middle East: Jewish Communities In Arab Countries 1841–1974
Minorities In The Middle East: Religious Communities In Jerusalem 1843–1974
Palestine And Transjordan Administration Reports 1918–1948
Political Diaries Of The Arab World: Palestine And Jordan 1920–1965
Records Of Jerusalem 1917–1971
Records Of Jordan 1919–1965
Survey of Western And Eastern Palestine 1882-1888
Zionist Movement And The Foundation Of Israel 1839–1972, The
Resumé
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The aim of the present work is to provide, in a single source of reference, copies of those historical documents which cumulatively defined the geographical and political limits of Palestine up to the end of the British Mandate in 1947. The work is intended to establish an objective historical base, taken from the records, for understanding the evolution of the territorial idea of Palestine before the modern era.
The collection is also intended to demonstrate the extent and limits of responsibility, particularly British and French, for territorial decisions, and likewise the extent of solid international agreement on the delimitation of Palestine boundaries in the past.
Back to top
Historical Overview
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Ottoman times, no political entity called Palestine existed. After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War, European boundary makers began to take greater interest in defining territorial limits for Palestine. Only since the 1920s has Palestine had formally delimited boundaries, though these have remained subject to repeated change and a source of bitter dispute.
The southern boundary (with Egypt) is the subject of Volume I of this collection. In the Ottoman Sultan´s firman (decree) of 1841, the first map appeared showing the boundaries of the area under Mohammed Ali Pasha´s rule. The eastern frontier of Egypt was shown as a straight line drawn from El Arish to Suez. East of this line was the Sinai Peninsula, almost waterless and inhabited only by a few Bedouin tribes. In 1892, however, with the possibility of Turkish troops being stationed in the Sinai Peninsula, a heated exchange of diplomatic correspondence took place between Cairo, London, and Constantinople. An administrative line between El Arish to the Gulf of Aqaba was agreed upon but no legal frontier was defined between Egypt and Ottoman territories. Stormy negotiations ensued in 1905 when the Sultan made a more determined effort to occupy the Peninsula. The Aqaba Incident brought the British and the Ottoman Empires to the brink of war in 1906.
The first volume includes a selection from the personal papers of Mr W E Jennings-Bramly, who at the time was a Frontier Administration Officer and was ordered to occupy Naqb el Aqaba with a small detachment of Egyptian troops. His papers provide an on-the-spot description of events and enhance this documentary collection for those interested in the delimitation of the boundary which today is the accepted frontier between Israel and Egypt.
The Anglo-French Accord
Volumes II and III provide an interesting overview of the Anglo-French debate over the northern boundary of Palestine. During the course of the First World War, the British and the French governments anticipated the defeat of the Turks and in the famous Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916, secretly divided the Ottoman Empire between themselves, the Russians and the Italians. However, British interest and political aspirations called for a rapid revision of the Sykes-Picot partition. Within less than a year of concluding the agreement, the government set out to modify the provisions concerning the status of Palestine.
In December 1918 the British Prime Minister Lloyd George secured French acceptance that Palestine should come under British rather than international administration. The records show how the following period of intense and sometimes bitter negotiations between British and French policy makers, with the Zionist Organization as an interested pressure group and virtual participant in the process came close to jeopardising the post-war peace settlement.
Zionist influence on boundaries
The controversy surrounding the subsequent negotiations was fuelled by conflicting wartime promises to the Zionists and to the Arabs. The Balfour Declaration of November 2nd, 1917, concerning the establishment of a Jewish National Home, formalised an alliance with the politically influential Zionist movement.
It was a matter of urgent importance to the Zionists that Palestine should acquire a defensible boundary which would circumscribe sufficient surface water supplies for the successful development of a Jewish agriculture. But while Lloyd George dedared that Palestine should be defined in accordance to its Biblical limits "from Dan to Beersheba", Dr Weizmann lobbied to extend the boundaries further north and east for economic and security considerations.
Britain´s promise to grant King Husayn of the Hedjaz an independent Arab Kingdom (Husayn-McMahon correspondence 1915-1916) in return for leading the Arab Revolt against the Ottomans during the First World War was increasingly compromised. Not only did the Hashemite states of Transjordan, Syria and later Iraq fall under British administration after the decision to apply the Mandate system to the territories was taken at San Remo in 1920, but Palestine, which was arguably promised to Husayn in 1915, was excluded from any Hashemite influence.
The eastern frontier with Transjordan
The eastern frontier was formally established in 1922 when the final draft of the Mandate for Palestine and Transjordan was approved by the League of Nations. This instrument provided the British with the authority to exclude the territory east of the Jordan river from those provisions concerning a National Home for the Jewish people. The British decided to administer Transjordan separately, leaving the Jordan river as the effective eastern boundary of Palestine.
Back to top
Documentary Importance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Documents were selected in the main from the Foreign Office and Colonial Office series of files in the National Archives, London. Supplementary material from official British sources comes from the India Office Library and Records, London. A selection of key papers is included from the Archives Diplomatiques, Ministère des Affaires Etrangères, Quai d´Orsay, Paris. The collection also makes use of a good part of the Jennings-Bramly private papers lodged with the Royal Geographical Society, London. This collection was edited by Ms Patricia Toye whose sudden death in October 1994 is a loss felt by all researchers and historians of the boundaries of the region. Volume I includes a historical preface by Ms Toye and a scholarly introduction by J.C. Hurewitz, Professor of Government Emeritus at Columbia University, New York.
Back to top
Contents Outline
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Included in Volume 1
Papers relating to the Arrangement made between the Porte and Mehemet Ali in 1833.
Communications with Mehemet Ali in 1838.
London Convention for the Pacification of the Levant 1840.
Memorandum relating to the Firman of 1841.
Summary of Turco-Egytian frontier negotiations, 1892-1906.
Correspondence respecting the Turco-Egyptian frontier in the Sinai Peninsula recapitulating the main phrases through which the Turco-Egyptian frontier question passed from its origin early in January 1906 to the presentation of a note to the Ottoman Government to comply with the British demands to evacuate Tab and to the delimitation of the frontier.
Private papers of Mr W E Jennings-Bramly, Frontier Administration Officer in the Sinai Peninsula, 1902-1947.
Demarcation of the Turco-Egyptian frontier.
Report on the 1906 Delimitation of the Turco-Egyptian boundary between the Vilayet of the Hedjaz and the Sinai Peninsula, 1907.
Future and status of the Sinai Peninsula, 1946.
Included in Volume 2
Secret war time arrangements among the Entente powers for the partition of the Ottoman Empire 1915-1918.
Constantinople Agreement, 4 March-10 April 1915.
Italo-Entente Secret Agreement, 26 April 1915.
Sykes-Picot Agreement, April-October 1916.
Saint-Jean de Maurienne Agreement, April-September 1917.
Husayn-McMahon Correspondence, July 1915-March 1916.
The Balfour Declaration, 2 November 1917.
De Bunsen Committee Report on British desiderata in the Middle East,June 1915.
Memorandum on French and Arab claims in the Middle East, December 1918.
Peace Conference memorandum respecting Palestine by Sir E Richards, January 1919.
Zionist Organisations´ memorandum to the Supreme Council at the Paris Peace Conference, 3 February 1919.
Aide-memoire in regard to the occupation of Syria, Palestine and Mesopotamia pending the decision in regard to Mandates, 13 September 1919.
Anglo-French post-war negotiations over the boundaries of Palestine 1919-1920 and the revision of the Sykes-Picot line.
Included in Volume 3
Anglo-French negoitiations regarding the northern frontier, November 1920.
Delimitation of frontier between Palestine and Syria, March-July 1921.
The Cairo Conference of 1921.
Churchill Memorandum, 1 July 1922.
Settlement of Bon Voisinage Agreement between Palestine and Syria, March-July 1921.
Mandate for Palestine, 24 July 1923.
Memorandum on the strategical importance of Palestine to Britain, July 1923.
Anglo-French Convention, 23 December 1923.
Agreement between the United Kingdom and Transjordan, March 1928.
Extract from memorandum on the submission of frontiers of mandated territories to the League of Nations, April 1932.
Agreement between Palestine and Syria and Lebanon amending the Agreement of 2 February 1926 regarding the frontier questions, 3 November 1938.
Treaty of Alliance between the United Kingdom and the Amir of Transjordan, 22 March 1946.
Notes on the legal status of Palestine and the termination of the Mandate.
Back to top
Maps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Map of the Sinai boundary, 1906.
Map of Aqaba-Rafah, showing in pencil line the line described by Captain Owen and the Turkish Commissioners, 1906.
Map of the Sinai boundary annexed to the 1 October 1906 Agreement.
Map of northern Palestine and adjacent area showing the frontiers between British and French spheres of influence 1921.
Map showing proposed boundary between Jordan and Palestine, 1919.
Map showing boundaries of Palestine in the French proposals of March and June 1920, the Sykes-Picot line and the Meinertzhagen line.
Map showing Lebanese boundary according to Ms.Berthelot's proposal of 11 March 1920.
Map showing boundary between Syria and Palestine signed by Lt.Col. Paulet for French Government in 1922 and removed from the Commission's report on the boundary FO 93/292.
War Office map of Syria showing the international boundaries of 1914, 1918.
War Office base map of Palestine, 1923.
Colonial Office map showing Palestine and adjacent area with proposed frontier roughly sketched, 1921.
For full list and references see Maplist.
Back to top
Related Titles:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arabian Boundaries 1853–1960
Arabian Boundaries 1961–1965
Arabian Boundary Disputes – Historical, Political And Legal Dossier
Arabian Treaties 1600–1960
Israel: Boundary Disputes With Arab Neighbours 1946–1964
Minorities In The Middle East: Druze Communities 1840–1974
Minorities In The Middle East: Jewish Communities In Arab Countries 1841–1974
Minorities In The Middle East: Religious Communities In Jerusalem 1843–1974
Palestine And Transjordan Administration Reports 1918–1948
Political Diaries Of The Arab World: Palestine And Jordan 1920–1965
Records Of Jerusalem 1917–1971
Records Of Jordan 1919–1965
Survey of Western And Eastern Palestine 1882-1888
Zionist Movement And The Foundation Of Israel 1839–1972, The
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Israel Boundaries and Extent.
The Qur'an 17:104 - states the land belongs to the Jewish people
Israel Boundaries and Extent.
The region now called Palestine is the southern-most part of Syria, and is included between two lines drawn from the Mediterranean eastward—the lower from the southeast corner of the Mediterranean through the southern end of the Dead Sea, and the upper from Tyre to the southern foot of Mount Hermon. This portion of Syria has certain natural boundaries to justify its historical individuality: the sea to the west, the Syrian desert to the east, and the desert of Al-Tih to the south. The desert boundary-lines vary, however, since these regions are not sandy wastes, like those in Egypt, but partially arable steppes. The line of habitation has, therefore, varied greatly, especially to the east, so that at times a settled population has advanced, under the influence of a strong and well-ordered polity, for a considerable distance into the steppes, only to be ultimately pushed back by the more powerful Bedouins. In the north the deep and wild Liṭani (called Nahr al-Ḳasimiyyah in itslower course) separates the upper Lebanon range from the lower hill-country of Galilee, and in the east Mount Hermon closes the country to the north. The sources of the Jordan are on the southern spur of this mountain.
Palestine extends, therefore, from 31° to 33° 20′ N. latitude. Its southwest point (at Raphia = Tell Rifaḥ, southwest of Gaza) is about 34° 15′ E. longitude, and its northwest point (mouth of the Liṭani) is at 35° 15′ E. longitude, while the course of the Jordan reaches 35° 35′ to the east. The west-Jordan country has, consequently, a length of about 150 English miles from north to south, and a breadth of about 23 miles at the north and 80 miles at the south. The area of this region, as measured by the surveyors of the English Palestine Exploration Fund, is about 6,040 square miles. The east-Jordan district is now being surveyed by the German Palästina-Verein, and although the work is not yet completed, its area may be estimated at 4,000 square miles. This entire region, as stated above, was not occupied exclusively by the Israelites, for the plain along the coast in the south belonged to the Philistines, and that in the north to the Phenicians, while in the east-Jordan country the Israelitic possessions never extended farther than the Arnon (Wadi al-Mujib) in the south, nor did the Israelites ever settle in the most northerly and easterly portions of the plain of Bashan. To-day the number of inhabitants does not exceed 650,000. Palestine, and especially the Israelitic state, covered, therefore, a very small area, approximating that of the state of Vermont.
Israel Boundaries and Extent.
The region now called Palestine is the southern-most part of Syria, and is included between two lines drawn from the Mediterranean eastward—the lower from the southeast corner of the Mediterranean through the southern end of the Dead Sea, and the upper from Tyre to the southern foot of Mount Hermon. This portion of Syria has certain natural boundaries to justify its historical individuality: the sea to the west, the Syrian desert to the east, and the desert of Al-Tih to the south. The desert boundary-lines vary, however, since these regions are not sandy wastes, like those in Egypt, but partially arable steppes. The line of habitation has, therefore, varied greatly, especially to the east, so that at times a settled population has advanced, under the influence of a strong and well-ordered polity, for a considerable distance into the steppes, only to be ultimately pushed back by the more powerful Bedouins. In the north the deep and wild Liṭani (called Nahr al-Ḳasimiyyah in itslower course) separates the upper Lebanon range from the lower hill-country of Galilee, and in the east Mount Hermon closes the country to the north. The sources of the Jordan are on the southern spur of this mountain.
Palestine extends, therefore, from 31° to 33° 20′ N. latitude. Its southwest point (at Raphia = Tell Rifaḥ, southwest of Gaza) is about 34° 15′ E. longitude, and its northwest point (mouth of the Liṭani) is at 35° 15′ E. longitude, while the course of the Jordan reaches 35° 35′ to the east. The west-Jordan country has, consequently, a length of about 150 English miles from north to south, and a breadth of about 23 miles at the north and 80 miles at the south. The area of this region, as measured by the surveyors of the English Palestine Exploration Fund, is about 6,040 square miles. The east-Jordan district is now being surveyed by the German Palästina-Verein, and although the work is not yet completed, its area may be estimated at 4,000 square miles. This entire region, as stated above, was not occupied exclusively by the Israelites, for the plain along the coast in the south belonged to the Philistines, and that in the north to the Phenicians, while in the east-Jordan country the Israelitic possessions never extended farther than the Arnon (Wadi al-Mujib) in the south, nor did the Israelites ever settle in the most northerly and easterly portions of the plain of Bashan. To-day the number of inhabitants does not exceed 650,000. Palestine, and especially the Israelitic state, covered, therefore, a very small area, approximating that of the state of Vermont.
Why Israel Is Free to Set Its Own Borders
The Qur'an 17:104 - states the land belongs to the Jewish people
Why Israel Is Free to Set Its Own Borders
Michael I. Krauss and J. Peter Pham From issue: July/August 2006
During this spring's election campaign in Israel, Ehud Olmert was candid about his Kadima party's plan for disengagement from the West Bank. His message was simple: with no one to talk to on the Palestinian side, Israel would have to act unilaterally to define and secure its borders.
Kadima's plan for “realignment” mainly amounted to withdrawing at least 60,000 settlers into blocs adjacent to the so-called Green Line (the ceasefire line established in 1949 at the end of Israel's War of Independence) and declaring a permanent border. Olmert was careful not to describe the exact contours of this settlement evacuation, but he made clear that it would bring all the settlers within Israel's yet-to-be-completed security barrier, which has been under construction since 2002. An estimated 193,000 Israelis already live in the 8 percent of Judea and Samaria that is between the projected route of the barrier and the 1949 boundaries.
Given that the government of the Palestinian Authority (PA) is now controlled by the terrorists of Hamas, the Bush administration has gently indicated that, while it prefers a negotiated deal with the Palestinians, it is open to supporting Israel's unilateral drawing of borders to include limited amounts of territory gained in the Six-Day war of 1967. As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice put it, employing a delicately diplomatic double negative, “I would not on the face of it just say absolutely that we don't think there's any value in what the Israelis are talking about.” When newly elected Prime Minister Olmert visited Washington in May, President Bush gave a similarly positive, if ambiguous, response, praising the Israeli leader for his “bold ideas.”
Other elements of the international community, however, have wasted no time in decrying Israel's effort formally to incorporate small parts of the West Bank. Speaking to the European Parliament in April, Javier Solana, the European Union's top foreign-policy official, lamented the “lack of dialogue with the Palestinian people in determining Israel's borders.” Not to be outdone, former President Jimmy Carter, writing in USA Today, condemned Kadima's program as a naked “land grab,” a violation of international law that no “objective member of the international community could accept.” On May 25, the New York Times chimed in, denouncing the idea of Israel's setting its own borders and lumping together Hamas, the government of Israel, and Bush as “two culprits and an enabler.”
In the view of Solana, Carter, the Times editorial board, and many other “objective” observers, the boundary between Israel and its Arab neighbors that prevailed between 1949 and 1967 is not just a historical baseline; it is a legitimate and well-established international border, one that the Jewish state has now ignored for nearly four decades. Such borders cannot be altered by force. As these critics see it, the Six-Day war of 1967 resulted in Israel's “occupation” of the West Bank (as well as of the Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and East Jerusalem). Much as that action might have been required by the exigencies of the time, it gives Israel no ongoing title to those lands. Indeed, in the view of the critics, it makes Israel's long-term presence there nothing less than an ongoing crime.
But are these claims supported by the history of Israel's conflict with its Arab neighbors, to say nothing of the standards of international law? In the West Bank, is Israel, in fact, an “occupier”?
_____________
With respect to Jewish settlement on the West Bank, the first document of any legal consequence dates from the San Remo Conference of 1920, where the victorious allied powers of World War I assigned the League of Nations mandate for Palestine to Great Britain. In doing so, they recognized, in the words of the mandate, “the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine” and the “grounds for constituting their national home in that country.” Article 6 of the document even “encouraged close settlement by Jews on the land,” land very much including the modern West Bank. 1
Though the League of Nations ceased to exist after World War II, the established right of Jews to live in the territories of Palestine remained in force. When the United Nations was created in 1946, its charter specifically preserved the existing mandates of the League. A year later, in Resolution 181, the UN, facing Great Britain's withdrawal from its mandate, recommended the partition of Palestine. Though the resolution, like all actions of the General Assembly, lacked legislative authority—and thus did not vest territorial rights in the region's Jews or Arabs—it did express the wishes of the international community.
Or, at any rate, most of the international community. For partition of Palestine was rejected from the start by the Arab states. As Israel prepared to claim its independence, the forces of Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Saudi Arabia made ready to invade, hoping to strangle the Jewish state in its cradle. Though this act of aggression failed, it did result in Jordan's forcible acquisition of the West Bank, in direct violation of the UN partition resolution and of the UN Charter. Jordan went so far as to purport to have annexed the area, but between 1949 and 1967, only two UN member states (Great Britain and Pakistan) recognized its sovereignty there. Indeed, even while asserting its claim over the West Bank, Jordan insisted that the dividing line established in 1949 was not an international border but rather, in the words of the armistice agreement, a provision “dictated exclusively by military considerations.”
What did all this mean for the West Bank's legal status? According to Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, editor of Oppenheim's International Law, one of the field's authoritative reference works, no state had sovereignty over the West Bank at the onset of the 1948-49 war. Jordan certainly could not then lay legitimate claim to the territory after acquiring it through armed aggression. 2 Nor could the UN, since its partition proposal was merely hortatory—a recommendation—and in any event the organization's charter contains no authorization for it to assume territorial sovereignty anywhere. In these circumstances, Lauterpacht concludes, the British withdrawal from the territory of the mandate resulted in a lapse or vacancy of internationally recognized sovereignty. The West Bank was, in legal jargon, res nullius: a thing belonging to no state. In such a case, sovereignty in international law may be acquired by any state in a position to assert effective and stable control without resort to unlawful means—a situation that would not exist until 1967.
_____________
It was with the Six-Day war of 1967 that Israel first came into possession of the West Bank, bringing down upon itself the now familiar charge of being an illegal “occupier” there. But a charge does not acquire moral or legal force simply through repetition over time, even if such repetition establishes it as conventional wisdom. Like the notion that Jordan or the UN or some other entity held valid title to the West Bank after 1949, the related notion that Israel's presence in the territory constitutes an “occupation” is utterly specious.
On May 15, 1967, President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt sent his troops into the Sinai peninsula and massed them near the Israeli border. Syrian troops simultaneously assembled in the Golan Heights. A week later, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping and blockaded the port of Eilat, thus halting the flow of oil to the Jewish state from its main supplier, the Shah's Iran. Under intense pressure from Nasser, Jordan's King Hussein signed a “defense pact” with the Egyptians. Algeria, Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia also contributed troops and arms to the build-up.
About the purpose of these military measures there could be no ambiguity. Hafez al-Assad, then the defense minister of Syria, exultantly declared his forces ready “to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland.” Nasser stated that “our basic objective is the destruction of Israel,” adding that the Arabs “will not accept any coexistence with Israel.” The Iraqi president, Abdur Rahman Aref, seconded these bloodthirsty sentiments in terms recently echoed by the current president of Iran: “The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. . . . Our goal is clear—to wipe Israel off the map.”
For Israel, these actions and statements constituted an unambiguous casus belli. Availing itself of the customary rights of international law, as well as the specific provisions of Article 51 of the UN Charter, the Jewish state set out to defend itself.
Surrounded on all sides and with its survival in the balance, Israel launched a remarkable series of air strikes on the morning of June 5, destroying the Egyptian and Syrian air forces while their pilots slept or ate breakfast. Simultaneously, Israeli armored units engaged Egyptians in the Sinai, while a small unit of the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) heroically held off Syrian troops entrenched on the Golan Heights and then pushed them back. That same day, Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol sent a message to King Hussein of Jordan, promising that Israel would not attack if Jordan stayed out of the fight. But Hussein, convinced that the Arabs would win, rejected the offer, and the Jordanian Legion began shelling West Jerusalem. Jordan also made thrusts westward, including the occupation of Government House in Jerusalem, which had been used by UN observers. Israel retaliated, and within two days the IDF had routed the Jordanians and achieved, miraculously to the mind of Israelis, the reunification of Jerusalem. No less fatefully, the Jewish state, having initially planned to remain purely defensive on the Jordanian front, had now overrun Jordanian positions throughout Judea and Samaria—that is, the West Bank.
After six days of fighting, Israel might easily have marched on to Cairo, Damascus, and Amman. Under the traditional laws of war, it certainly would have been justified in doing so, with the aim of neutralizing its bellicose enemies. But having no desire to wage offensive war, Prime Minister Eshkol and his cabinet yielded to American wishes and on June 10 accepted a unilateral ceasefire. At this point, a series of diplomatic and juridical maneuvers took place, the consequences of which are still relevant today.
_____________
The day after the ceasefire, the Soviet Union, which had been humiliated along with the Arab clients it had armed and supplied, introduced in the UN Security Council a resolution branding Israel the aggressor and calling for its immediate withdrawal to the boundaries that had existed before the conflict. The resolution was defeated. The USSR then switched its efforts to the General Assembly, where a similar resolution was also defeated. When the Security Council reconvened in the fall of 1967, the USSR tried yet again, only to be rebuffed a third time. The UN was not prepared to demand that Israel return, without condition, territory that it had taken in a defensive war provoked by its enemies' aggression.
It was in this context that Resolution 242, introduced by the British ambassador, was adopted unanimously by the Security Council on November 22. The resolution had something for both sides. On the one hand, it called for the “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict”; on the other hand, it described the necessary backdrop for such a withdrawal as the right of “every state in the area to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” Since Israel had never denied the legitimacy or the existence of its sovereign neighbors, the onus was clearly on its Arab enemies to acknowledge Israel. Such acknowledgment, as we know, was not to be had, thus foreclosing the possibility of the “secure and recognized borders” contemplated by the resolution.
Despite decades of misinformation to the contrary, the text of Resolution 242 did not require Israel to withdraw to the truce lines that existed before the war. Testimony by Arthur J. Goldberg, the former Supreme Court Justice who was then serving as U.S. ambassador to the UN, is telling. As he wrote in 1988,
The notable omissions in language used to refer to withdrawal are the words the, all, and the June 5, 1967 lines. . . . [T]here is lacking a declaration requiring Israel to withdraw from the (or all the) territories occupied by it on and after June 5, 1967. Instead, the resolution stipulates withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of the withdrawal. And it can be inferred from the incorporation of the words secure and recognized boundaries that the territorial adjustments to be made by the parties in their peace settlements could encompass less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territories [emphases in the original].
Goldberg's interpretation may in fact understate the original meaning of Resolution 242. According to George Brown, Britain's foreign secretary at the time, the explicit and well-understood point of the text was that “Israel will not withdraw from all the territories.” 3
Commentators wishing to contest this view have emphasized Resolution 242's assertion of the principle of “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.” Setting aside the fact that a great many countries include within them territory obtained through armed conflict, this principle simply does not apply to Israel's seizure of the West Bank, or to its continuing control of the area today. The expression “by war” is not a legal synonym for “as a result of armed conflict.” The principle pertains only to the conquest of territory through military aggression, of which Israel was manifestly not guilty.
In 1967, Israel fought not to extend its realm but to preserve its very existence and to establish a secure frontier—actions with obvious legitimacy in international law. As Judge Steven Schwebel, who would later head the International Court of Justice, noted in a 1970 article in the American Journal of International Law, “Where the prior holder of territory [in this case, Jordan] had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has . . . better title.”
Israel's legal claim to the West Bank is also supported by the principle of prescription. As the U.S. Supreme Court noted in the case of Arkansas v. Tennessee (1940), prescription in international law refers to “the acquisition of sovereignty over a territory through continuous and undisturbed exercise of sovereignty.” The point of this principle is straightforward enough; it rests, in the words of the eminent legal scholar Lassa Oppenheim, on “the same rational basis as prescription in municipal law—namely, the creation of stability and order.” Based solely on these criteria, Israel's claim is plainly stronger than that of Jordan, Great Britain (the mandate holder), or Turkey (the prior colonial ruler), all of which were dispossessed from the West Bank long ago.
Israel itself has been silent about the status of its presence in the West Bank, declining to recognize the application of Israeli law to the hostile indigenous population even as it has established Jewish settlements in the area (an act of sovereignty). Because of this ambiguity, Israel's claim based on prescription is less than invincible—although it remains better than the claim of any other state.
_____________
As for those Israeli settlements, some number of which would be preserved under Prime Minister Olmert's withdrawal plan, it is often asserted that they themselves constitute a breach of international law. More specifically, it is argued that the Israeli towns violate the Fourth Geneva Convention, ratified in 1949 to protect civilians in wartime. In the words of the convention, to which Israel is a signatory, an occupying power “shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into territory it occupies.”
As we have already seen, there are strong reasons to hold that Israel is not the aggressive occupier of the West Bank but its sovereign. For this reason alone the Fourth Geneva Convention is arguably inapplicable. Nor is that the only reason: under its own article 2, the convention applies only to cases involving the “occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party [i.e., state], by another such Party.” Before 1967, as we have seen, the West Bank was not a recognized part of any other such “High Contracting Party.”
But let us set this legal argument aside. Even so, it is highly doubtful that the Fourth Geneva Convention, according to its original meaning and intent, would forbid the settlement of Jews in the West Bank. The convention was established in response to the Nazi practice of forcibly transporting populations into or out of occupied territories in order to liquidate them, or to use them as slave labor. Even if Israel were an occupying power in the West Bank, and if the Fourth Geneva Convention were applicable, Jewish settlement would be forbidden there only if, in the language of the convention, such transfers “impair[ed] the economic situation or racial integrity of the native population.”
But this condition hardly obtains. For all of the protests that have long surrounded Israel's presence in the West Bank, the past four decades have seen the territory's “native population” skyrocket, with a growth rate far exceeding that of Israel itself. Moreover, as Efraim Karsh has exhaustively documented in these pages, the West Bank, while under full Israeli control, prospered as have few other corners of the Arab world, whether one looks at health, education, or economic development. 4 One might even argue that, far from being a cruel occupier, Israel has done more to enhance the “economic situation” and “racial integrity” of the Palestinians than have the Palestinians themselves.
_____________
It is beyond the scope of this essay to consider why much of the world (including, alas, the United States) has seen fit to assign to Israel the unhappy epithet of “occupier.” But one of the most striking findings for those who do research in this area is that the term “occupied territories” seems to apply only to Israel's administration of the West Bank (and, previously, Gaza). The term is rarely if ever used in discussing other bitter, long-standing territorial disputes. Indian Kashmir, for instance, is merely a “disputed region” in the eyes of the U.S. Department of State. Nor is it easy to find international actors ready to point an accusing finger at “occupation forces” in Kurdistan and Northern Cyprus or, for that matter, in Quebec, Catalonia, and Ulster. When it comes to the concept of “occupied territory,” Israel would appear—unjustly—to have a monopoly.
None of this is to suggest that Israel's legal and historical claims to sovereignty in the West Bank require it to remain there. But neither is it required to consult either the Palestinian Arabs or the self-appointed representatives of the “international community” if it decides to withdraw from some territory and determine its own borders. As Ariel Sharon and now Ehud Olmert have argued, it may well be in Israel's national interest to disentangle itself, as much as prudence requires, from the Palestinians and the territory in which they predominate. As many Israelis see it, to do any less might court the risk of Israel's itself becoming an “occupied territory”—and at the hands of a far less benign power.
It would be best to bring about any such disengagement through negotiations with a credible and well-meaning Palestinian counterpart. But for now and the foreseeable future, the seat on the other side of the table remains empty. In this circumstance, exactly as in the 1967 war of aggression that attempted its annihilation, Israel, if it chooses to do so, has every legal right to act alone.
_____________
About the Author
Michael I. Krauss is professor at George Mason University School of Law. J. Peter Pham is director of the Nelson Institute for International and Public Affairs at James Madison University. Both are academic fellows of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. This is their first appearance in COMMENTARY.
Agree? Disagree? Write a letter to the editor
Let us know what you think! Send an email to editor@commentarymagazine.com
Footnotes
1 It was Britain's 1922 carving of “Transjordan” as a separate Hashemite state out of the territory of mandatory Palestine, and the exclusion of Jews from this new entity, that in fact represented a violation of the agreed-upon legal arrangement.
2 This remains an important point today. The Palestinian Authority's current claim to the territory is predicated on Jordan's having ceded its own legal claims to the PLO in 1988. International law has, however, consistently adhered to the norm of “nemo dat quod non habet”: no one can give that which he does not own.
3 The French version of the draft resolution was framed possibly more ambiguously, speaking of a “retrait des forces armées israéliennes des territoires occupés.” But as Eugene V. Rostow showed, independent linguistic checks of the text were made in different foreign ministries and the original English text was allowed to stand as formulated. The use of the phrase “des territories occupés” (“from the occupied territories”) has been attributed even by many French grammarians to the requirements of the French language, not to a divergent interpretation of the resolution.
4 See “What Occupation?” in the July-August 2002 COMMENTARY.
Why Israel Is Free to Set Its Own Borders
Michael I. Krauss and J. Peter Pham From issue: July/August 2006
During this spring's election campaign in Israel, Ehud Olmert was candid about his Kadima party's plan for disengagement from the West Bank. His message was simple: with no one to talk to on the Palestinian side, Israel would have to act unilaterally to define and secure its borders.
Kadima's plan for “realignment” mainly amounted to withdrawing at least 60,000 settlers into blocs adjacent to the so-called Green Line (the ceasefire line established in 1949 at the end of Israel's War of Independence) and declaring a permanent border. Olmert was careful not to describe the exact contours of this settlement evacuation, but he made clear that it would bring all the settlers within Israel's yet-to-be-completed security barrier, which has been under construction since 2002. An estimated 193,000 Israelis already live in the 8 percent of Judea and Samaria that is between the projected route of the barrier and the 1949 boundaries.
Given that the government of the Palestinian Authority (PA) is now controlled by the terrorists of Hamas, the Bush administration has gently indicated that, while it prefers a negotiated deal with the Palestinians, it is open to supporting Israel's unilateral drawing of borders to include limited amounts of territory gained in the Six-Day war of 1967. As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice put it, employing a delicately diplomatic double negative, “I would not on the face of it just say absolutely that we don't think there's any value in what the Israelis are talking about.” When newly elected Prime Minister Olmert visited Washington in May, President Bush gave a similarly positive, if ambiguous, response, praising the Israeli leader for his “bold ideas.”
Other elements of the international community, however, have wasted no time in decrying Israel's effort formally to incorporate small parts of the West Bank. Speaking to the European Parliament in April, Javier Solana, the European Union's top foreign-policy official, lamented the “lack of dialogue with the Palestinian people in determining Israel's borders.” Not to be outdone, former President Jimmy Carter, writing in USA Today, condemned Kadima's program as a naked “land grab,” a violation of international law that no “objective member of the international community could accept.” On May 25, the New York Times chimed in, denouncing the idea of Israel's setting its own borders and lumping together Hamas, the government of Israel, and Bush as “two culprits and an enabler.”
In the view of Solana, Carter, the Times editorial board, and many other “objective” observers, the boundary between Israel and its Arab neighbors that prevailed between 1949 and 1967 is not just a historical baseline; it is a legitimate and well-established international border, one that the Jewish state has now ignored for nearly four decades. Such borders cannot be altered by force. As these critics see it, the Six-Day war of 1967 resulted in Israel's “occupation” of the West Bank (as well as of the Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and East Jerusalem). Much as that action might have been required by the exigencies of the time, it gives Israel no ongoing title to those lands. Indeed, in the view of the critics, it makes Israel's long-term presence there nothing less than an ongoing crime.
But are these claims supported by the history of Israel's conflict with its Arab neighbors, to say nothing of the standards of international law? In the West Bank, is Israel, in fact, an “occupier”?
_____________
With respect to Jewish settlement on the West Bank, the first document of any legal consequence dates from the San Remo Conference of 1920, where the victorious allied powers of World War I assigned the League of Nations mandate for Palestine to Great Britain. In doing so, they recognized, in the words of the mandate, “the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine” and the “grounds for constituting their national home in that country.” Article 6 of the document even “encouraged close settlement by Jews on the land,” land very much including the modern West Bank. 1
Though the League of Nations ceased to exist after World War II, the established right of Jews to live in the territories of Palestine remained in force. When the United Nations was created in 1946, its charter specifically preserved the existing mandates of the League. A year later, in Resolution 181, the UN, facing Great Britain's withdrawal from its mandate, recommended the partition of Palestine. Though the resolution, like all actions of the General Assembly, lacked legislative authority—and thus did not vest territorial rights in the region's Jews or Arabs—it did express the wishes of the international community.
Or, at any rate, most of the international community. For partition of Palestine was rejected from the start by the Arab states. As Israel prepared to claim its independence, the forces of Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Saudi Arabia made ready to invade, hoping to strangle the Jewish state in its cradle. Though this act of aggression failed, it did result in Jordan's forcible acquisition of the West Bank, in direct violation of the UN partition resolution and of the UN Charter. Jordan went so far as to purport to have annexed the area, but between 1949 and 1967, only two UN member states (Great Britain and Pakistan) recognized its sovereignty there. Indeed, even while asserting its claim over the West Bank, Jordan insisted that the dividing line established in 1949 was not an international border but rather, in the words of the armistice agreement, a provision “dictated exclusively by military considerations.”
What did all this mean for the West Bank's legal status? According to Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, editor of Oppenheim's International Law, one of the field's authoritative reference works, no state had sovereignty over the West Bank at the onset of the 1948-49 war. Jordan certainly could not then lay legitimate claim to the territory after acquiring it through armed aggression. 2 Nor could the UN, since its partition proposal was merely hortatory—a recommendation—and in any event the organization's charter contains no authorization for it to assume territorial sovereignty anywhere. In these circumstances, Lauterpacht concludes, the British withdrawal from the territory of the mandate resulted in a lapse or vacancy of internationally recognized sovereignty. The West Bank was, in legal jargon, res nullius: a thing belonging to no state. In such a case, sovereignty in international law may be acquired by any state in a position to assert effective and stable control without resort to unlawful means—a situation that would not exist until 1967.
_____________
It was with the Six-Day war of 1967 that Israel first came into possession of the West Bank, bringing down upon itself the now familiar charge of being an illegal “occupier” there. But a charge does not acquire moral or legal force simply through repetition over time, even if such repetition establishes it as conventional wisdom. Like the notion that Jordan or the UN or some other entity held valid title to the West Bank after 1949, the related notion that Israel's presence in the territory constitutes an “occupation” is utterly specious.
On May 15, 1967, President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt sent his troops into the Sinai peninsula and massed them near the Israeli border. Syrian troops simultaneously assembled in the Golan Heights. A week later, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping and blockaded the port of Eilat, thus halting the flow of oil to the Jewish state from its main supplier, the Shah's Iran. Under intense pressure from Nasser, Jordan's King Hussein signed a “defense pact” with the Egyptians. Algeria, Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia also contributed troops and arms to the build-up.
About the purpose of these military measures there could be no ambiguity. Hafez al-Assad, then the defense minister of Syria, exultantly declared his forces ready “to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland.” Nasser stated that “our basic objective is the destruction of Israel,” adding that the Arabs “will not accept any coexistence with Israel.” The Iraqi president, Abdur Rahman Aref, seconded these bloodthirsty sentiments in terms recently echoed by the current president of Iran: “The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. . . . Our goal is clear—to wipe Israel off the map.”
For Israel, these actions and statements constituted an unambiguous casus belli. Availing itself of the customary rights of international law, as well as the specific provisions of Article 51 of the UN Charter, the Jewish state set out to defend itself.
Surrounded on all sides and with its survival in the balance, Israel launched a remarkable series of air strikes on the morning of June 5, destroying the Egyptian and Syrian air forces while their pilots slept or ate breakfast. Simultaneously, Israeli armored units engaged Egyptians in the Sinai, while a small unit of the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) heroically held off Syrian troops entrenched on the Golan Heights and then pushed them back. That same day, Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol sent a message to King Hussein of Jordan, promising that Israel would not attack if Jordan stayed out of the fight. But Hussein, convinced that the Arabs would win, rejected the offer, and the Jordanian Legion began shelling West Jerusalem. Jordan also made thrusts westward, including the occupation of Government House in Jerusalem, which had been used by UN observers. Israel retaliated, and within two days the IDF had routed the Jordanians and achieved, miraculously to the mind of Israelis, the reunification of Jerusalem. No less fatefully, the Jewish state, having initially planned to remain purely defensive on the Jordanian front, had now overrun Jordanian positions throughout Judea and Samaria—that is, the West Bank.
After six days of fighting, Israel might easily have marched on to Cairo, Damascus, and Amman. Under the traditional laws of war, it certainly would have been justified in doing so, with the aim of neutralizing its bellicose enemies. But having no desire to wage offensive war, Prime Minister Eshkol and his cabinet yielded to American wishes and on June 10 accepted a unilateral ceasefire. At this point, a series of diplomatic and juridical maneuvers took place, the consequences of which are still relevant today.
_____________
The day after the ceasefire, the Soviet Union, which had been humiliated along with the Arab clients it had armed and supplied, introduced in the UN Security Council a resolution branding Israel the aggressor and calling for its immediate withdrawal to the boundaries that had existed before the conflict. The resolution was defeated. The USSR then switched its efforts to the General Assembly, where a similar resolution was also defeated. When the Security Council reconvened in the fall of 1967, the USSR tried yet again, only to be rebuffed a third time. The UN was not prepared to demand that Israel return, without condition, territory that it had taken in a defensive war provoked by its enemies' aggression.
It was in this context that Resolution 242, introduced by the British ambassador, was adopted unanimously by the Security Council on November 22. The resolution had something for both sides. On the one hand, it called for the “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict”; on the other hand, it described the necessary backdrop for such a withdrawal as the right of “every state in the area to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” Since Israel had never denied the legitimacy or the existence of its sovereign neighbors, the onus was clearly on its Arab enemies to acknowledge Israel. Such acknowledgment, as we know, was not to be had, thus foreclosing the possibility of the “secure and recognized borders” contemplated by the resolution.
Despite decades of misinformation to the contrary, the text of Resolution 242 did not require Israel to withdraw to the truce lines that existed before the war. Testimony by Arthur J. Goldberg, the former Supreme Court Justice who was then serving as U.S. ambassador to the UN, is telling. As he wrote in 1988,
The notable omissions in language used to refer to withdrawal are the words the, all, and the June 5, 1967 lines. . . . [T]here is lacking a declaration requiring Israel to withdraw from the (or all the) territories occupied by it on and after June 5, 1967. Instead, the resolution stipulates withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of the withdrawal. And it can be inferred from the incorporation of the words secure and recognized boundaries that the territorial adjustments to be made by the parties in their peace settlements could encompass less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territories [emphases in the original].
Goldberg's interpretation may in fact understate the original meaning of Resolution 242. According to George Brown, Britain's foreign secretary at the time, the explicit and well-understood point of the text was that “Israel will not withdraw from all the territories.” 3
Commentators wishing to contest this view have emphasized Resolution 242's assertion of the principle of “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war.” Setting aside the fact that a great many countries include within them territory obtained through armed conflict, this principle simply does not apply to Israel's seizure of the West Bank, or to its continuing control of the area today. The expression “by war” is not a legal synonym for “as a result of armed conflict.” The principle pertains only to the conquest of territory through military aggression, of which Israel was manifestly not guilty.
In 1967, Israel fought not to extend its realm but to preserve its very existence and to establish a secure frontier—actions with obvious legitimacy in international law. As Judge Steven Schwebel, who would later head the International Court of Justice, noted in a 1970 article in the American Journal of International Law, “Where the prior holder of territory [in this case, Jordan] had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has . . . better title.”
Israel's legal claim to the West Bank is also supported by the principle of prescription. As the U.S. Supreme Court noted in the case of Arkansas v. Tennessee (1940), prescription in international law refers to “the acquisition of sovereignty over a territory through continuous and undisturbed exercise of sovereignty.” The point of this principle is straightforward enough; it rests, in the words of the eminent legal scholar Lassa Oppenheim, on “the same rational basis as prescription in municipal law—namely, the creation of stability and order.” Based solely on these criteria, Israel's claim is plainly stronger than that of Jordan, Great Britain (the mandate holder), or Turkey (the prior colonial ruler), all of which were dispossessed from the West Bank long ago.
Israel itself has been silent about the status of its presence in the West Bank, declining to recognize the application of Israeli law to the hostile indigenous population even as it has established Jewish settlements in the area (an act of sovereignty). Because of this ambiguity, Israel's claim based on prescription is less than invincible—although it remains better than the claim of any other state.
_____________
As for those Israeli settlements, some number of which would be preserved under Prime Minister Olmert's withdrawal plan, it is often asserted that they themselves constitute a breach of international law. More specifically, it is argued that the Israeli towns violate the Fourth Geneva Convention, ratified in 1949 to protect civilians in wartime. In the words of the convention, to which Israel is a signatory, an occupying power “shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into territory it occupies.”
As we have already seen, there are strong reasons to hold that Israel is not the aggressive occupier of the West Bank but its sovereign. For this reason alone the Fourth Geneva Convention is arguably inapplicable. Nor is that the only reason: under its own article 2, the convention applies only to cases involving the “occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party [i.e., state], by another such Party.” Before 1967, as we have seen, the West Bank was not a recognized part of any other such “High Contracting Party.”
But let us set this legal argument aside. Even so, it is highly doubtful that the Fourth Geneva Convention, according to its original meaning and intent, would forbid the settlement of Jews in the West Bank. The convention was established in response to the Nazi practice of forcibly transporting populations into or out of occupied territories in order to liquidate them, or to use them as slave labor. Even if Israel were an occupying power in the West Bank, and if the Fourth Geneva Convention were applicable, Jewish settlement would be forbidden there only if, in the language of the convention, such transfers “impair[ed] the economic situation or racial integrity of the native population.”
But this condition hardly obtains. For all of the protests that have long surrounded Israel's presence in the West Bank, the past four decades have seen the territory's “native population” skyrocket, with a growth rate far exceeding that of Israel itself. Moreover, as Efraim Karsh has exhaustively documented in these pages, the West Bank, while under full Israeli control, prospered as have few other corners of the Arab world, whether one looks at health, education, or economic development. 4 One might even argue that, far from being a cruel occupier, Israel has done more to enhance the “economic situation” and “racial integrity” of the Palestinians than have the Palestinians themselves.
_____________
It is beyond the scope of this essay to consider why much of the world (including, alas, the United States) has seen fit to assign to Israel the unhappy epithet of “occupier.” But one of the most striking findings for those who do research in this area is that the term “occupied territories” seems to apply only to Israel's administration of the West Bank (and, previously, Gaza). The term is rarely if ever used in discussing other bitter, long-standing territorial disputes. Indian Kashmir, for instance, is merely a “disputed region” in the eyes of the U.S. Department of State. Nor is it easy to find international actors ready to point an accusing finger at “occupation forces” in Kurdistan and Northern Cyprus or, for that matter, in Quebec, Catalonia, and Ulster. When it comes to the concept of “occupied territory,” Israel would appear—unjustly—to have a monopoly.
None of this is to suggest that Israel's legal and historical claims to sovereignty in the West Bank require it to remain there. But neither is it required to consult either the Palestinian Arabs or the self-appointed representatives of the “international community” if it decides to withdraw from some territory and determine its own borders. As Ariel Sharon and now Ehud Olmert have argued, it may well be in Israel's national interest to disentangle itself, as much as prudence requires, from the Palestinians and the territory in which they predominate. As many Israelis see it, to do any less might court the risk of Israel's itself becoming an “occupied territory”—and at the hands of a far less benign power.
It would be best to bring about any such disengagement through negotiations with a credible and well-meaning Palestinian counterpart. But for now and the foreseeable future, the seat on the other side of the table remains empty. In this circumstance, exactly as in the 1967 war of aggression that attempted its annihilation, Israel, if it chooses to do so, has every legal right to act alone.
_____________
About the Author
Michael I. Krauss is professor at George Mason University School of Law. J. Peter Pham is director of the Nelson Institute for International and Public Affairs at James Madison University. Both are academic fellows of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. This is their first appearance in COMMENTARY.
Agree? Disagree? Write a letter to the editor
Let us know what you think! Send an email to editor@commentarymagazine.com
Footnotes
1 It was Britain's 1922 carving of “Transjordan” as a separate Hashemite state out of the territory of mandatory Palestine, and the exclusion of Jews from this new entity, that in fact represented a violation of the agreed-upon legal arrangement.
2 This remains an important point today. The Palestinian Authority's current claim to the territory is predicated on Jordan's having ceded its own legal claims to the PLO in 1988. International law has, however, consistently adhered to the norm of “nemo dat quod non habet”: no one can give that which he does not own.
3 The French version of the draft resolution was framed possibly more ambiguously, speaking of a “retrait des forces armées israéliennes des territoires occupés.” But as Eugene V. Rostow showed, independent linguistic checks of the text were made in different foreign ministries and the original English text was allowed to stand as formulated. The use of the phrase “des territories occupés” (“from the occupied territories”) has been attributed even by many French grammarians to the requirements of the French language, not to a divergent interpretation of the resolution.
4 See “What Occupation?” in the July-August 2002 COMMENTARY.
The Palestine Mandate of the League of Nations
The Qur'an 17:104 - states the land belongs to the Jewish people
The Palestine Mandate of the League of Nations
Introduction
The Palestine Mandate was born out of the ambitions of the British and their promises to the French, the Arabs and the Zionists, as set forth in the Balfour declaration, the Sykes Picot Agreement and the McMahon Correspondence. The background is discussed extensively by David Fromkin, A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East, 1990 (Owl books, 2001) and also by Michael J. Cohen in The Origins and Evolution of the Arab-Zionist Conflict 1987. Cohen wrote:
"..But once the United States abdicated any further role in the new European order after the summer of 1919, it was left to Britain and France to divide the Middle East between them. It cannot be said that either power displayed any great altruism when it came to deciding whether the indigenous peoples of the area were mature enough to be granted their independence. In April 1920, in the small Italian town of San Remo, Britain and France divide the Middle East into mandates while the American ambassador read his newspaper in the garden. Britain obtained Palestine, Transjordan 6 and Iraq; the French acquired Syria.
6. (footnote) - Palestine and Transjordan remained a single administrative unit until 1946, but in 1922, Transjordan was detached from the area to which the Balfour Declaration applied. This has remained a grievance with the Zionist side, but it should be remembered that the area to the east of the river Jordan was definitely included in the area promised to Husayn in 1915; the linking of Palestine and Transjordan had been an administrative convenience for Britain and did not indicate any recognition of Zionist claims to the East Bank of the Jordan.
Michael J. Cohen - The origins and Evolution of the Arab-Zionist Conflict, University of California Press, 1987 page 64 and footnote.
The League Mandate system was tailored to match the colonialist ambitions of the British and French in fact, while paying lip service to the American wishful thinking about self-determination. In accordance with the principles of the Balfour Declaration and Article 22 of the League Convenant, the League of Nations drew up the Mandate for Palestine. The document underwent several transformations. Arab pressure and riots in Palestine had brought about the Churchill White Paper of 1922, which again reiterated the right of the Jews to a Homeland in Palestine. At this time, Britain detached all of the area east of the Jordan river from Palestine and gave it to the Hashemi family as an independent Arab state. Many historians believe that this was a sop to the Hashemites, who had lost Syria to the French and Saudi Arabia to ibn Saud. As noted above, others believe that Transjordan was never a part of Palestine. Maps drawn by the Zionists and presented for consideration during deliberations regarding the mandate included a part of Transjordan.
While the Mandate was derived from the Balfour Declaration and based on it, it amplified and interpreted the declaration beyond the meaning of the original wording, perhaps unintentionally. In particular, Article 6 reads:
ART. 6. The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced,
The Balfour declaration had stated:
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."
While it could be possible to develop a Jewish national home while respecting the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities, it would be totally impossible to develop a Jewish national home without prejudicing the position of the Arabs of Palestine, who had been a majority and would become a minority as the result of Jewish immigration. So interpreted, the mission of the Mandatory would become impossible. The British subsequently interpreted this clause to mean at least that Arabs must have economic parity with Jews, and that the Jewish sector of Palestine could not develop unless the Arab sector developed (see Passfield White Paper ).
Ami Isseroff
Notice - Copyright 2003
This introduction is Copyright 2001-2003 by MidEastWeb http://www.mideastweb.org and the author. Please tell your friends about MidEastWeb and link to this page. Please do not copy this page to your Web site. You may print this page out for classroom use provided that this notice is appended, and you may cite this material in the usual way. Other uses by permission only. The source material below is placed in the public domain and is free of copy restrictions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MidEastWeb is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting peace and coexistence in the Middle East. We provide balanced and complete information, news and views to promote understanding and dialog. We cannot continue without your help! If peace in the Middle East is important to you, please help us by making a tax-deductible donation. If you don't help us, who will? Thank you!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Palestine Mandate
The Council of the League of Nations:
July 24, 1922
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and
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; and
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; and
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and
Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and
Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and
Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations; confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:
ARTICLE 1. The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate.
ART. 2. The Mandatory shall 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.
ART. 3. The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances permit, encourage local autonomy.
ART. 4. An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.
The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
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. 6. The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.
ART. 7. The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
ART. 8. The privileges and immunities of foreigners, including the benefits of consular jurisdiction and protection as formerly enjoyed by Capitulation or usage in the Ottoman Empire, shall not be applicable in Palestine.
Unless the Powers whose nationals enjoyed the afore-mentioned privileges and immunities on August 1st, 1914, shall have previously renounced the right to their re-establishment, or shall have agreed to their non-application for a specified period, these privileges and immunities shall, at the expiration of the mandate, be immediately reestablished in their entirety or with such modifications as may have been agreed upon between the Powers concerned.
ART. 9. The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that the judicial system established in Palestine shall assure to foreigners, as well as to natives, a complete guarantee of their rights.
Respect for the personal status of the various peoples and communities and for their religious interests shall be fully guaranteed. In particular, the control and administration of Wakfs shall be exercised in accordance with religious law and the dispositions of the founders.
ART. 10. Pending the making of special extradition agreements relating to Palestine, the extradition treaties in force between the Mandatory and other foreign Powers shall apply to Palestine.
ART. 11. The Administration of Palestine shall take all necessary measures to safeguard the interests of the community in connection with the development of the country, and, subject to any international obligations accepted by the Mandatory, shall have full power to provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the country or of the public works, services and utilities established or to be established therein. It shall introduce a land system appropriate to the needs of the country, having regard, among other things, to the desirability of promoting the close settlement and intensive cultivation of the land.
The Administration may arrange with the Jewish agency mentioned in Article 4 to construct or operate, upon fair and equitable terms, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country, in so far as these matters are not directly undertaken by the Administration. Any such arrangements shall provide that no profits distributed by such agency, directly or indirectly, shall exceed a reasonable rate of interest on the capital, and any further profits shall be utilised by it for the benefit of the country in a manner approved by the Administration.
ART. 12. The Mandatory shall be entrusted with the control of the foreign relations of Palestine and the right to issue exequaturs to consuls appointed by foreign Powers. He shall also be entitled to afford diplomatic and consular protection to citizens of Palestine when outside its territorial limits.
ART. 13. 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, who shall be responsible solely to the League of Nations in all matters connected herewith, provided that nothing in this article shall prevent the Mandatory from entering into such arrangements as he may deem reasonable with the Administration for the purpose of carrying the provisions of this article into effect; and provided also that nothing in this mandate shall be construed as conferring upon the Mandatory authority to interfere with the fabric or the management of purely Moslem sacred shrines, the immunities of which are guaranteed.
ART. 14. A special commission shall be appointed by the Mandatory to study, define and determine the rights and claims in connection with the Holy Places and the rights and claims relating to the different religious communities in Palestine. The method of nomination, the composition and the functions of this Commission shall be submitted to the Council of the League for its approval, and the Commission shall not be appointed or enter upon its functions without the approval of the Council.
ART. 15. The Mandatory shall see that complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, are ensured to all. No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.
The right of each community to maintain its own schools for the education of its own members in its own language, while conforming to such educational requirements of a general nature as the Administration may impose, shall not be denied or impaired.
ART. 16. The Mandatory shall be responsible for exercising such supervision over religious or eleemosynary bodies of all faiths in Palestine as may be required for the maintenance of public order and good government. Subject to such supervision, no measures shall be taken in Palestine to obstruct or interfere with the enterprise of such bodies or to discriminate against any representative or member of them on the ground of his religion or nationality.
ART. 17. The Administration of Palestine may organise on a voluntary basis the forces necessary for the preservation of peace and order, and also for the defence of the country, subject, however, to the supervision of the Mandatory, but shall not use them for purposes other than those above specified save with the consent of the Mandatory. Except for such purposes, no military, naval or air forces shall be raised or maintained by the Administration of Palestine.
Nothing in this article shall preclude the Administration of Palestine from contributing to the cost of the maintenance of the forces of the Mandatory in Palestine.
The Mandatory shall be entitled at all times to use the roads, railways and ports of Palestine for the movement of armed forces and the carriage of fuel and supplies.
ART. 18. The Mandatory shall see that there is no discrimination in Palestine against the nationals of any State Member of the League of Nations (including companies incorporated under its laws) as compared with those of the Mandatory or of any foreign State in matters concerning taxation, commerce or navigation, the exercise of industries or professions, or in the treatment of merchant vessels or civil aircraft. Similarly, there shall be no discrimination in Palestine against goods originating in or destined for any of the said States, and there shall be freedom of transit under equitable conditions across the mandated area.
Subject as aforesaid and to the other provisions of this mandate, the Administration of Palestine may, on the advice of the Mandatory, impose such taxes and customs duties as it may consider necessary, and take such steps as it may think best to promote the development of the natural resources of the country and to safeguard the interests of the population. It may also, on the advice of the Mandatory, conclude a special customs agreement with any State the territory of which in 1914 was wholly included in Asiatic Turkey or Arabia.
ART. 19. The Mandatory shall adhere on behalf of the Administration of Palestine to any general international conventions already existing, or which may be concluded hereafter with the approval of the League of Nations, respecting the slave traffic, the traffic in arms and ammunition, or the traffic in drugs, or relating to commercial equality, freedom of transit and navigation, aerial navigation and postal, telegraphic and wireless communication or literary, artistic or industrial property.
ART. 20. The Mandatory shall co-operate on behalf of the Administration of Palestine, so far as religious, social and other conditions may permit, in the execution of any common policy adopted by the League of Nations for preventing and combating disease, including diseases of plants and animals.
ART. 21. The Mandatory shall secure the enactment within twelve months from this date, and shall ensure the execution of a Law of Antiquities based on the following rules. This law shall ensure equality of treatment in the matter of excavations and archaeological research to the nationals of all States Members of the League of Nations.
(1) "Antiquity" means any construction or any product of human activity earlier than the year 1700 A. D.
(2) The law for the protection of antiquities shall proceed by encouragement rather than by threat.
Any person who, having discovered an antiquity without being furnished with the authorization referred to in paragraph 5, reports the same to an official of the competent Department, shall be rewarded according to the value of the discovery.
(3) No antiquity may be disposed of except to the competent Department, unless this Department renounces the acquisition of any such antiquity.
No antiquity may leave the country without an export licence from the said Department.
(4) Any person who maliciously or negligently destroys or damages an antiquity shall be liable to a penalty to be fixed.
(5) No clearing of ground or digging with the object of finding antiquities shall be permitted, under penalty of fine, except to persons authorised by the competent Department.
(6) Equitable terms shall be fixed for expropriation, temporary or permanent, of lands which might be of historical or archaeological interest.
(7) Authorization to excavate shall only be granted to persons who show sufficient guarantees of archaeological experience. The Administration of Palestine shall not, in granting these authorizations, act in such a way as to exclude scholars of any nation without good grounds.
(8) The proceeds of excavations may be divided between the excavator and the competent Department in a proportion fixed by that Department. If division seems impossible for scientific reasons, the excavator shall receive a fair indemnity in lieu of a part of the find.
ART. 22. English, Arabic and Hebrew shall be the official languages of Palestine. Any statement or inscription in Arabic on stamps or money in Palestine shall be repeated in Hebrew and any statement or inscription in Hebrew shall be repeated in Arabic.
ART. 23. The Administration of Palestine shall recognise the holy days of the respective communities in Palestine as legal days of rest for the members of such communities.
ART. 24. The Mandatory shall make to the Council of the League of Nations an annual report to the satisfaction of the Council as to the measures taken during the year to carry out the provisions of the mandate. Copies of all laws and regulations promulgated or issued during the year shall be communicated with the report.
ART. 25. In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.
ART. 26. The Mandatory agrees that, if any dispute whatever should arise between the Mandatory and another member of the League of Nations relating to the interpretation or the application of the provisions of the mandate, such dispute, if it cannot be settled by negotiation, shall be submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice provided for by Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
ART. 27. The consent of the Council of the League of Nations is required for any modification of the terms of this mandate.
ART. 28. In the event of the termination of the mandate hereby conferred upon the Mandatory, the Council of the League of Nations shall make such arrangements as may be deemed necessary for safeguarding in perpetuity, under guarantee of the League, the rights secured by Articles 13 and 14, and shall use its influence for securing, under the guarantee of the League, that the Government of Palestine will fully honour the financial obligations legitimately incurred by the Administration of Palestine during the period of the mandate, including the rights of public servants to pensions or gratuities.
The present instrument shall be deposited in original in the archives of the League of Nations and certified copies shall be forwarded by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations to all members of the League.
Done at London the twenty-fourth day of July, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two.
Historical documents Israel & Palestine History Recent history of Israel & Palestine
The Palestine Mandate of the League of Nations
Introduction
The Palestine Mandate was born out of the ambitions of the British and their promises to the French, the Arabs and the Zionists, as set forth in the Balfour declaration, the Sykes Picot Agreement and the McMahon Correspondence. The background is discussed extensively by David Fromkin, A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East, 1990 (Owl books, 2001) and also by Michael J. Cohen in The Origins and Evolution of the Arab-Zionist Conflict 1987. Cohen wrote:
"..But once the United States abdicated any further role in the new European order after the summer of 1919, it was left to Britain and France to divide the Middle East between them. It cannot be said that either power displayed any great altruism when it came to deciding whether the indigenous peoples of the area were mature enough to be granted their independence. In April 1920, in the small Italian town of San Remo, Britain and France divide the Middle East into mandates while the American ambassador read his newspaper in the garden. Britain obtained Palestine, Transjordan 6 and Iraq; the French acquired Syria.
6. (footnote) - Palestine and Transjordan remained a single administrative unit until 1946, but in 1922, Transjordan was detached from the area to which the Balfour Declaration applied. This has remained a grievance with the Zionist side, but it should be remembered that the area to the east of the river Jordan was definitely included in the area promised to Husayn in 1915; the linking of Palestine and Transjordan had been an administrative convenience for Britain and did not indicate any recognition of Zionist claims to the East Bank of the Jordan.
Michael J. Cohen - The origins and Evolution of the Arab-Zionist Conflict, University of California Press, 1987 page 64 and footnote.
The League Mandate system was tailored to match the colonialist ambitions of the British and French in fact, while paying lip service to the American wishful thinking about self-determination. In accordance with the principles of the Balfour Declaration and Article 22 of the League Convenant, the League of Nations drew up the Mandate for Palestine. The document underwent several transformations. Arab pressure and riots in Palestine had brought about the Churchill White Paper of 1922, which again reiterated the right of the Jews to a Homeland in Palestine. At this time, Britain detached all of the area east of the Jordan river from Palestine and gave it to the Hashemi family as an independent Arab state. Many historians believe that this was a sop to the Hashemites, who had lost Syria to the French and Saudi Arabia to ibn Saud. As noted above, others believe that Transjordan was never a part of Palestine. Maps drawn by the Zionists and presented for consideration during deliberations regarding the mandate included a part of Transjordan.
While the Mandate was derived from the Balfour Declaration and based on it, it amplified and interpreted the declaration beyond the meaning of the original wording, perhaps unintentionally. In particular, Article 6 reads:
ART. 6. The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced,
The Balfour declaration had stated:
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."
While it could be possible to develop a Jewish national home while respecting the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities, it would be totally impossible to develop a Jewish national home without prejudicing the position of the Arabs of Palestine, who had been a majority and would become a minority as the result of Jewish immigration. So interpreted, the mission of the Mandatory would become impossible. The British subsequently interpreted this clause to mean at least that Arabs must have economic parity with Jews, and that the Jewish sector of Palestine could not develop unless the Arab sector developed (see Passfield White Paper ).
Ami Isseroff
Notice - Copyright 2003
This introduction is Copyright 2001-2003 by MidEastWeb http://www.mideastweb.org and the author. Please tell your friends about MidEastWeb and link to this page. Please do not copy this page to your Web site. You may print this page out for classroom use provided that this notice is appended, and you may cite this material in the usual way. Other uses by permission only. The source material below is placed in the public domain and is free of copy restrictions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MidEastWeb is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting peace and coexistence in the Middle East. We provide balanced and complete information, news and views to promote understanding and dialog. We cannot continue without your help! If peace in the Middle East is important to you, please help us by making a tax-deductible donation. If you don't help us, who will? Thank you!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Palestine Mandate
The Council of the League of Nations:
July 24, 1922
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and
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; and
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; and
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and
Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and
Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and
Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations; confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:
ARTICLE 1. The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate.
ART. 2. The Mandatory shall 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.
ART. 3. The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances permit, encourage local autonomy.
ART. 4. An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.
The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
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. 6. The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.
ART. 7. The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
ART. 8. The privileges and immunities of foreigners, including the benefits of consular jurisdiction and protection as formerly enjoyed by Capitulation or usage in the Ottoman Empire, shall not be applicable in Palestine.
Unless the Powers whose nationals enjoyed the afore-mentioned privileges and immunities on August 1st, 1914, shall have previously renounced the right to their re-establishment, or shall have agreed to their non-application for a specified period, these privileges and immunities shall, at the expiration of the mandate, be immediately reestablished in their entirety or with such modifications as may have been agreed upon between the Powers concerned.
ART. 9. The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that the judicial system established in Palestine shall assure to foreigners, as well as to natives, a complete guarantee of their rights.
Respect for the personal status of the various peoples and communities and for their religious interests shall be fully guaranteed. In particular, the control and administration of Wakfs shall be exercised in accordance with religious law and the dispositions of the founders.
ART. 10. Pending the making of special extradition agreements relating to Palestine, the extradition treaties in force between the Mandatory and other foreign Powers shall apply to Palestine.
ART. 11. The Administration of Palestine shall take all necessary measures to safeguard the interests of the community in connection with the development of the country, and, subject to any international obligations accepted by the Mandatory, shall have full power to provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the country or of the public works, services and utilities established or to be established therein. It shall introduce a land system appropriate to the needs of the country, having regard, among other things, to the desirability of promoting the close settlement and intensive cultivation of the land.
The Administration may arrange with the Jewish agency mentioned in Article 4 to construct or operate, upon fair and equitable terms, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country, in so far as these matters are not directly undertaken by the Administration. Any such arrangements shall provide that no profits distributed by such agency, directly or indirectly, shall exceed a reasonable rate of interest on the capital, and any further profits shall be utilised by it for the benefit of the country in a manner approved by the Administration.
ART. 12. The Mandatory shall be entrusted with the control of the foreign relations of Palestine and the right to issue exequaturs to consuls appointed by foreign Powers. He shall also be entitled to afford diplomatic and consular protection to citizens of Palestine when outside its territorial limits.
ART. 13. 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, who shall be responsible solely to the League of Nations in all matters connected herewith, provided that nothing in this article shall prevent the Mandatory from entering into such arrangements as he may deem reasonable with the Administration for the purpose of carrying the provisions of this article into effect; and provided also that nothing in this mandate shall be construed as conferring upon the Mandatory authority to interfere with the fabric or the management of purely Moslem sacred shrines, the immunities of which are guaranteed.
ART. 14. A special commission shall be appointed by the Mandatory to study, define and determine the rights and claims in connection with the Holy Places and the rights and claims relating to the different religious communities in Palestine. The method of nomination, the composition and the functions of this Commission shall be submitted to the Council of the League for its approval, and the Commission shall not be appointed or enter upon its functions without the approval of the Council.
ART. 15. The Mandatory shall see that complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, are ensured to all. No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.
The right of each community to maintain its own schools for the education of its own members in its own language, while conforming to such educational requirements of a general nature as the Administration may impose, shall not be denied or impaired.
ART. 16. The Mandatory shall be responsible for exercising such supervision over religious or eleemosynary bodies of all faiths in Palestine as may be required for the maintenance of public order and good government. Subject to such supervision, no measures shall be taken in Palestine to obstruct or interfere with the enterprise of such bodies or to discriminate against any representative or member of them on the ground of his religion or nationality.
ART. 17. The Administration of Palestine may organise on a voluntary basis the forces necessary for the preservation of peace and order, and also for the defence of the country, subject, however, to the supervision of the Mandatory, but shall not use them for purposes other than those above specified save with the consent of the Mandatory. Except for such purposes, no military, naval or air forces shall be raised or maintained by the Administration of Palestine.
Nothing in this article shall preclude the Administration of Palestine from contributing to the cost of the maintenance of the forces of the Mandatory in Palestine.
The Mandatory shall be entitled at all times to use the roads, railways and ports of Palestine for the movement of armed forces and the carriage of fuel and supplies.
ART. 18. The Mandatory shall see that there is no discrimination in Palestine against the nationals of any State Member of the League of Nations (including companies incorporated under its laws) as compared with those of the Mandatory or of any foreign State in matters concerning taxation, commerce or navigation, the exercise of industries or professions, or in the treatment of merchant vessels or civil aircraft. Similarly, there shall be no discrimination in Palestine against goods originating in or destined for any of the said States, and there shall be freedom of transit under equitable conditions across the mandated area.
Subject as aforesaid and to the other provisions of this mandate, the Administration of Palestine may, on the advice of the Mandatory, impose such taxes and customs duties as it may consider necessary, and take such steps as it may think best to promote the development of the natural resources of the country and to safeguard the interests of the population. It may also, on the advice of the Mandatory, conclude a special customs agreement with any State the territory of which in 1914 was wholly included in Asiatic Turkey or Arabia.
ART. 19. The Mandatory shall adhere on behalf of the Administration of Palestine to any general international conventions already existing, or which may be concluded hereafter with the approval of the League of Nations, respecting the slave traffic, the traffic in arms and ammunition, or the traffic in drugs, or relating to commercial equality, freedom of transit and navigation, aerial navigation and postal, telegraphic and wireless communication or literary, artistic or industrial property.
ART. 20. The Mandatory shall co-operate on behalf of the Administration of Palestine, so far as religious, social and other conditions may permit, in the execution of any common policy adopted by the League of Nations for preventing and combating disease, including diseases of plants and animals.
ART. 21. The Mandatory shall secure the enactment within twelve months from this date, and shall ensure the execution of a Law of Antiquities based on the following rules. This law shall ensure equality of treatment in the matter of excavations and archaeological research to the nationals of all States Members of the League of Nations.
(1) "Antiquity" means any construction or any product of human activity earlier than the year 1700 A. D.
(2) The law for the protection of antiquities shall proceed by encouragement rather than by threat.
Any person who, having discovered an antiquity without being furnished with the authorization referred to in paragraph 5, reports the same to an official of the competent Department, shall be rewarded according to the value of the discovery.
(3) No antiquity may be disposed of except to the competent Department, unless this Department renounces the acquisition of any such antiquity.
No antiquity may leave the country without an export licence from the said Department.
(4) Any person who maliciously or negligently destroys or damages an antiquity shall be liable to a penalty to be fixed.
(5) No clearing of ground or digging with the object of finding antiquities shall be permitted, under penalty of fine, except to persons authorised by the competent Department.
(6) Equitable terms shall be fixed for expropriation, temporary or permanent, of lands which might be of historical or archaeological interest.
(7) Authorization to excavate shall only be granted to persons who show sufficient guarantees of archaeological experience. The Administration of Palestine shall not, in granting these authorizations, act in such a way as to exclude scholars of any nation without good grounds.
(8) The proceeds of excavations may be divided between the excavator and the competent Department in a proportion fixed by that Department. If division seems impossible for scientific reasons, the excavator shall receive a fair indemnity in lieu of a part of the find.
ART. 22. English, Arabic and Hebrew shall be the official languages of Palestine. Any statement or inscription in Arabic on stamps or money in Palestine shall be repeated in Hebrew and any statement or inscription in Hebrew shall be repeated in Arabic.
ART. 23. The Administration of Palestine shall recognise the holy days of the respective communities in Palestine as legal days of rest for the members of such communities.
ART. 24. The Mandatory shall make to the Council of the League of Nations an annual report to the satisfaction of the Council as to the measures taken during the year to carry out the provisions of the mandate. Copies of all laws and regulations promulgated or issued during the year shall be communicated with the report.
ART. 25. In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.
ART. 26. The Mandatory agrees that, if any dispute whatever should arise between the Mandatory and another member of the League of Nations relating to the interpretation or the application of the provisions of the mandate, such dispute, if it cannot be settled by negotiation, shall be submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice provided for by Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
ART. 27. The consent of the Council of the League of Nations is required for any modification of the terms of this mandate.
ART. 28. In the event of the termination of the mandate hereby conferred upon the Mandatory, the Council of the League of Nations shall make such arrangements as may be deemed necessary for safeguarding in perpetuity, under guarantee of the League, the rights secured by Articles 13 and 14, and shall use its influence for securing, under the guarantee of the League, that the Government of Palestine will fully honour the financial obligations legitimately incurred by the Administration of Palestine during the period of the mandate, including the rights of public servants to pensions or gratuities.
The present instrument shall be deposited in original in the archives of the League of Nations and certified copies shall be forwarded by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations to all members of the League.
Done at London the twenty-fourth day of July, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two.
Historical documents Israel & Palestine History Recent history of Israel & Palestine
The Mandate for Palestine
The Qur'an 17:104 - states the land belongs to the Jewish people
The Mandate for Palestine
July 24, 1922
The mandates for Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine were assigned by the Supreme Court of the League of Nations at its San Remo meeting in April 1920. Negotiations between Great Britain and the United States with regard to the Palestine mandate were successfully concluded in May 1922, and approved by the Council of the League of Nations in July 1922. The mandates for Palestine and Syria came into force simultaneously on September 29, 1922. In this document, the League of Nations recognized the "historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and the "grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."
Text:
The Council of the League of Nations
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and
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 favour 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 ; and
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; and
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and
Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and
Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and
Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations;
Confirming the said mandate, defines its terms as follows:
Article 1.
The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate.
Article 2.
The Mandatory shall 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.
Article 3.
The Mandatory shall,so far as circumstances permit, encourage local autonomy.
Article 4.
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country.
The Zionist organisation, so long as its organisation and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
Article 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.
Article 6.
The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency. referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews, on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.
Article 7.
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
Article 8.
The privileges and immunities of foreigners, including the benefits of consular jurisdiction and protection as formerly enjoyed by Capitulation or usage in the Ottoman Empire, shall not be applicable in Palestine.
Unless the Powers whose nationals enjoyed the afore-mentioned privileges and immunities on August 1st, 1914, shall have previously renounced the right to their re-establishment, or shall have agreed to their non-application for a specified period, these privileges and immunities shall, at the expiration of the mandate, be immediately re-established in their entirety or with such modifications as may have been agreed upon between the Powers concerned.
Article 9.
The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that the judicial system established in Palestine shall assure to foreigners, as wen as to natives, a complete guarantee of their rights.
Respect for the personal status of the various peoples and communities and for their religious interests shall be fully guaranteed. In particular, the control and administration of Wakfs shall be exercised in accordance with religious law and the dispositions of the founders.
Article 10.
Pending the making of special extradition agreements relating to Palestine, the extradition treaties in force between the Mandatory and other foreign Powers shall apply to Palestine.
Article 11.
The Administration of Palestine shall take all necessary measures to safeguard the interests of the community in connection with the development of the country, and, subject to any international obligations accepted by the Mandatory, shall have full power to provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the country or of the public works, services and utilities established or to be established therein. It shall introduce a land system appropriate to the needs of the country, having regard, among other things, to the desirability of promoting the close settlement and intensive cultivation of the land.
The Administration may arrange with the Jewish agency mentioned in Article 4 to construct or operate, upon fair and equitable terms, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country, in so far as these matters are not directly undertaken by the Administration. Any such arrangements shall provide that no profits distributed by such agency, directly or indirectly, shall exceed a reasonable rate of interest on the capital, and any further profits shall be utilised by it for the benefit of the country in a manner approved by the Administration.
Article 12.
The Mandatory shall be entrusted with the control of the foreign relations of Palestine and the right to issue exequaturs to consuls appointed by foreign Powers. He shall also be entitled to afford diplomatic and consular protection to citizens of Palestine when outside its territorial limits.
Article 13.
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, who shall be responsible solely to the League of Nations. in all matters connected herewith, provided that nothing in this article shall prevent the Mandatory from entering into such arrangements as he may deem reasonable with the Administration for the purpose of carrying the provisions of this article into effect; and provided also that nothing in this mandate shall be construed as conferring upon the Mandatory authority to interfere with the fabric or the management of purely Moslem sacred shrines, the immunities of which are guaranteed.
Article 14.
A special Commission shall be appointed by the Mandatory to study, define and determine the rights and claims in connection with the Holy Places and the rights and claims relating to the different religious communities in Palestine. The method of nomination, the composition and the functions of this Commission shall be submitted to the Council of the League for its approval, and the Commission shall not be appointed or enter upon its functions without the approval of the Council.
Article 15.
The Mandatory shall see that complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, are ensured to all. No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.
The right of each community to maintain its own schools for the education of its own members in its own language, while conforming to such educational requirements of a general nature as the Administration may impose, shall not be denied or impaired.
Article 16.
The Mandatory shall be responsible for exercising such supervision over religious or eleemosynary bodies of all faiths in Palestine as may be required for the maintenance of public order and good government. Subject to such supervision, no measures shall be taken in Palestine to obstruct or interfere with the enterprise of such bodies or to discriminate against any representative or member of them on the ground of his religion or nationality.
Article 17.
The Administration of Palestine may organise on a voluntary basis the forces necessary for the preservation of peace and order, and also for the defence of the country, subject, however, to the supervision of the Mandatory, but shall not use them for purposes other than those above specified save with the consent of the Mandatory, Except for such purposes, no military, naval or air forces shall be raised or maintained by the Administration of Palestine.
Nothing in this article shall preclude the Administration of Palestine from contributing to the cost of the maintenance of the forces of the Mandatory in Palestine.
The Mandatory shall be entitled at all times to use the roads, railways and ports of Palestine for the movement of armed f forces and the carriage of fuel and supplies.
Article 18.
The Mandatory shall see that there is no discrimination in Palestine against the nationals of any State Member of the League of Nations (including companies incorporated under its laws) as compared with those of the Mandatory or of any foreign State in matters concerning taxation, commerce or navigation, the exercise of industries or professions, or in the treatment of merchant vessels or civil aircraft. Similarly, there shall be no discrimination in Palestine against goods originating in or destined for any of the said States, and there shall be freedom of transit under equitable conditions across the mandated area.
Subject as aforesaid and to the other provisions of this mandate, the Administration of Palestine may, on the advice of the Mandatory, impose such taxes and customs duties as it may consider necessary, and take such steps as it may think best to promote the development of the natural resources of the country and to safeguard the interests of the population. It may also, on the advice of the Mandatory, conclude a special customs agreement with any State the territory of which in 1914 was wholly included in Asiatic Turkey or Arabia.
Article 19.
The Mandatory shall adhere on behalf of the Administration of Palestine to any general international conventions already existing, or which may be concluded hereafter with the approval of the League of Nations, respecting the slave traffic, the traffic in arms and ammunition, or the traffic in drugs, or relating to commercial equality, freedom of transit and navigation, aerial navigation and postal, telegraphic and wireless communication or literary, artistic or industrial property.
Article 20.
The Mandatory shall co-operate on behalf of the Administration of Palestine, so far as religious, social and other conditions may permit, in the execution of any common policy adopted by the League of Nations for preventing and combating disease, including diseases of plants and animals.
Article 21.
The Mandatory shall secure the enactment within twelve months from this date, and shall ensure the execution of a Law of Antiquities based on the following rules. This law shall ensure equality of treatment in the matter of excavations and archaeological research to the nations of all States Members of the League of Nations.
(1) 'Antiquity' means any construction or any product of human activity earlier than the year A.D. 1700.
(2) The law for the protection of antiquities shall proceed by encouragement rather than by threat.
Any person who, having discovered an antiquity without being furnished with the authorisation referred to in paragraph 5, reports the same to an official of the competent Department, shall be rewarded according to the value of the discovery.
(3) No antiquity may be disposed of except to the competent Department, unless this Department renounces the acquisition of any such antiquity.
No antiquity may leave the country without an export licence from the said Department.
(4) Any person who maliciously or negligently destroys or damages an antiquity shall be liable to a penalty to be fixed.
(5) No clearing of ground or digging with the object of finding
antiquities shall be permitted, under penalty of fine, except to persons authorised by the competent Department.
(6) Equitable terms shall be fixed for expropriation, temporary or permanent, of lands which might be of historical or archaeological interest.
(7) Authorisation to excavate shall only be granted to persons who show sufficient guarantees of archaeological experience. The Administration of Palestine shall not, in granting these authorisations, act in such a way as to exclude scholars of any nation without good grounds.
(8) The proceeds of excavations may be divided between the excavator and the competent Department in a proportion fixed by that Department. If division seems impossible for scientific reasons, the excavator shall receive a fair indemnity in lieu of a part of the find.
Article 22.
English, Arabic and Hebrew shall be the official languages of Palestine. Any statement or inscription in Arabic on stamps or money in Palestine shall be repeated in Hebrew, and any statement or inscription in Hebrew shall be repeated in Arabic.
Article 23.
The Administration of Palestine shall recognise the holy days of the respective communities in Palestine as legal days of rest for the members of such communities.
Article 24.
The Mandatory shall make to the Council of the League of Nations an annual report to the satisfaction of the Council as to the measures taken during the year to carry out the provisions of the mandate. Copies of all laws and regulations promulgated or issued during the year shall be communicated with the report.
Article 25.
In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.
Article 26.
The Mandatory agrees that, if any dispute whatever should arise between the Mandatory and another Member of the League of Nations relating to the interpretation or the application of the provisions of the mandate, such dispute, if it cannot be settled by negotiation, shall be submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice provided for by Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
Article 27.
The consent of the Council of the League of Nations is required for any modification of the terms of this mandate.
Article 28.
In the event of the termination of the mandate hereby conferred upon the Mandatory, the Council of the League of Nations shall make such arrangements as may be deemed necessary for safeguarding in perpetuity, under guarantee of the League, the rights secured by Articles 13 and 14, and shall use its influence for securing, under the guarantee of the League, that the Government of Palestine will fully honour the financial obligations legitimately incurred by the Administration of Palestine during the period of the mandate, including the rights of public servants ,to pensions or gratuities.
The present instrument shall be deposited in original in the archives of the League of Nations and certified copies shall be forwarded by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations to all Members of the League.
Done at London the twenty-fourth day of July, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two.
The Mandate for Palestine
July 24, 1922
The mandates for Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine were assigned by the Supreme Court of the League of Nations at its San Remo meeting in April 1920. Negotiations between Great Britain and the United States with regard to the Palestine mandate were successfully concluded in May 1922, and approved by the Council of the League of Nations in July 1922. The mandates for Palestine and Syria came into force simultaneously on September 29, 1922. In this document, the League of Nations recognized the "historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and the "grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."
Text:
The Council of the League of Nations
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and
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 favour 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 ; and
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; and
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and
Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and
Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and
Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League of Nations;
Confirming the said mandate, defines its terms as follows:
Article 1.
The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate.
Article 2.
The Mandatory shall 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.
Article 3.
The Mandatory shall,so far as circumstances permit, encourage local autonomy.
Article 4.
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country.
The Zionist organisation, so long as its organisation and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the cooperation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.
Article 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.
Article 6.
The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency. referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews, on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.
Article 7.
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
Article 8.
The privileges and immunities of foreigners, including the benefits of consular jurisdiction and protection as formerly enjoyed by Capitulation or usage in the Ottoman Empire, shall not be applicable in Palestine.
Unless the Powers whose nationals enjoyed the afore-mentioned privileges and immunities on August 1st, 1914, shall have previously renounced the right to their re-establishment, or shall have agreed to their non-application for a specified period, these privileges and immunities shall, at the expiration of the mandate, be immediately re-established in their entirety or with such modifications as may have been agreed upon between the Powers concerned.
Article 9.
The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that the judicial system established in Palestine shall assure to foreigners, as wen as to natives, a complete guarantee of their rights.
Respect for the personal status of the various peoples and communities and for their religious interests shall be fully guaranteed. In particular, the control and administration of Wakfs shall be exercised in accordance with religious law and the dispositions of the founders.
Article 10.
Pending the making of special extradition agreements relating to Palestine, the extradition treaties in force between the Mandatory and other foreign Powers shall apply to Palestine.
Article 11.
The Administration of Palestine shall take all necessary measures to safeguard the interests of the community in connection with the development of the country, and, subject to any international obligations accepted by the Mandatory, shall have full power to provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the country or of the public works, services and utilities established or to be established therein. It shall introduce a land system appropriate to the needs of the country, having regard, among other things, to the desirability of promoting the close settlement and intensive cultivation of the land.
The Administration may arrange with the Jewish agency mentioned in Article 4 to construct or operate, upon fair and equitable terms, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country, in so far as these matters are not directly undertaken by the Administration. Any such arrangements shall provide that no profits distributed by such agency, directly or indirectly, shall exceed a reasonable rate of interest on the capital, and any further profits shall be utilised by it for the benefit of the country in a manner approved by the Administration.
Article 12.
The Mandatory shall be entrusted with the control of the foreign relations of Palestine and the right to issue exequaturs to consuls appointed by foreign Powers. He shall also be entitled to afford diplomatic and consular protection to citizens of Palestine when outside its territorial limits.
Article 13.
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, who shall be responsible solely to the League of Nations. in all matters connected herewith, provided that nothing in this article shall prevent the Mandatory from entering into such arrangements as he may deem reasonable with the Administration for the purpose of carrying the provisions of this article into effect; and provided also that nothing in this mandate shall be construed as conferring upon the Mandatory authority to interfere with the fabric or the management of purely Moslem sacred shrines, the immunities of which are guaranteed.
Article 14.
A special Commission shall be appointed by the Mandatory to study, define and determine the rights and claims in connection with the Holy Places and the rights and claims relating to the different religious communities in Palestine. The method of nomination, the composition and the functions of this Commission shall be submitted to the Council of the League for its approval, and the Commission shall not be appointed or enter upon its functions without the approval of the Council.
Article 15.
The Mandatory shall see that complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, are ensured to all. No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.
The right of each community to maintain its own schools for the education of its own members in its own language, while conforming to such educational requirements of a general nature as the Administration may impose, shall not be denied or impaired.
Article 16.
The Mandatory shall be responsible for exercising such supervision over religious or eleemosynary bodies of all faiths in Palestine as may be required for the maintenance of public order and good government. Subject to such supervision, no measures shall be taken in Palestine to obstruct or interfere with the enterprise of such bodies or to discriminate against any representative or member of them on the ground of his religion or nationality.
Article 17.
The Administration of Palestine may organise on a voluntary basis the forces necessary for the preservation of peace and order, and also for the defence of the country, subject, however, to the supervision of the Mandatory, but shall not use them for purposes other than those above specified save with the consent of the Mandatory, Except for such purposes, no military, naval or air forces shall be raised or maintained by the Administration of Palestine.
Nothing in this article shall preclude the Administration of Palestine from contributing to the cost of the maintenance of the forces of the Mandatory in Palestine.
The Mandatory shall be entitled at all times to use the roads, railways and ports of Palestine for the movement of armed f forces and the carriage of fuel and supplies.
Article 18.
The Mandatory shall see that there is no discrimination in Palestine against the nationals of any State Member of the League of Nations (including companies incorporated under its laws) as compared with those of the Mandatory or of any foreign State in matters concerning taxation, commerce or navigation, the exercise of industries or professions, or in the treatment of merchant vessels or civil aircraft. Similarly, there shall be no discrimination in Palestine against goods originating in or destined for any of the said States, and there shall be freedom of transit under equitable conditions across the mandated area.
Subject as aforesaid and to the other provisions of this mandate, the Administration of Palestine may, on the advice of the Mandatory, impose such taxes and customs duties as it may consider necessary, and take such steps as it may think best to promote the development of the natural resources of the country and to safeguard the interests of the population. It may also, on the advice of the Mandatory, conclude a special customs agreement with any State the territory of which in 1914 was wholly included in Asiatic Turkey or Arabia.
Article 19.
The Mandatory shall adhere on behalf of the Administration of Palestine to any general international conventions already existing, or which may be concluded hereafter with the approval of the League of Nations, respecting the slave traffic, the traffic in arms and ammunition, or the traffic in drugs, or relating to commercial equality, freedom of transit and navigation, aerial navigation and postal, telegraphic and wireless communication or literary, artistic or industrial property.
Article 20.
The Mandatory shall co-operate on behalf of the Administration of Palestine, so far as religious, social and other conditions may permit, in the execution of any common policy adopted by the League of Nations for preventing and combating disease, including diseases of plants and animals.
Article 21.
The Mandatory shall secure the enactment within twelve months from this date, and shall ensure the execution of a Law of Antiquities based on the following rules. This law shall ensure equality of treatment in the matter of excavations and archaeological research to the nations of all States Members of the League of Nations.
(1) 'Antiquity' means any construction or any product of human activity earlier than the year A.D. 1700.
(2) The law for the protection of antiquities shall proceed by encouragement rather than by threat.
Any person who, having discovered an antiquity without being furnished with the authorisation referred to in paragraph 5, reports the same to an official of the competent Department, shall be rewarded according to the value of the discovery.
(3) No antiquity may be disposed of except to the competent Department, unless this Department renounces the acquisition of any such antiquity.
No antiquity may leave the country without an export licence from the said Department.
(4) Any person who maliciously or negligently destroys or damages an antiquity shall be liable to a penalty to be fixed.
(5) No clearing of ground or digging with the object of finding
antiquities shall be permitted, under penalty of fine, except to persons authorised by the competent Department.
(6) Equitable terms shall be fixed for expropriation, temporary or permanent, of lands which might be of historical or archaeological interest.
(7) Authorisation to excavate shall only be granted to persons who show sufficient guarantees of archaeological experience. The Administration of Palestine shall not, in granting these authorisations, act in such a way as to exclude scholars of any nation without good grounds.
(8) The proceeds of excavations may be divided between the excavator and the competent Department in a proportion fixed by that Department. If division seems impossible for scientific reasons, the excavator shall receive a fair indemnity in lieu of a part of the find.
Article 22.
English, Arabic and Hebrew shall be the official languages of Palestine. Any statement or inscription in Arabic on stamps or money in Palestine shall be repeated in Hebrew, and any statement or inscription in Hebrew shall be repeated in Arabic.
Article 23.
The Administration of Palestine shall recognise the holy days of the respective communities in Palestine as legal days of rest for the members of such communities.
Article 24.
The Mandatory shall make to the Council of the League of Nations an annual report to the satisfaction of the Council as to the measures taken during the year to carry out the provisions of the mandate. Copies of all laws and regulations promulgated or issued during the year shall be communicated with the report.
Article 25.
In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.
Article 26.
The Mandatory agrees that, if any dispute whatever should arise between the Mandatory and another Member of the League of Nations relating to the interpretation or the application of the provisions of the mandate, such dispute, if it cannot be settled by negotiation, shall be submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice provided for by Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
Article 27.
The consent of the Council of the League of Nations is required for any modification of the terms of this mandate.
Article 28.
In the event of the termination of the mandate hereby conferred upon the Mandatory, the Council of the League of Nations shall make such arrangements as may be deemed necessary for safeguarding in perpetuity, under guarantee of the League, the rights secured by Articles 13 and 14, and shall use its influence for securing, under the guarantee of the League, that the Government of Palestine will fully honour the financial obligations legitimately incurred by the Administration of Palestine during the period of the mandate, including the rights of public servants ,to pensions or gratuities.
The present instrument shall be deposited in original in the archives of the League of Nations and certified copies shall be forwarded by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations to all Members of the League.
Done at London the twenty-fourth day of July, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)