In Touch - 3rd Quarter 2020

SPECIAL FEATURE
Israel Extending Sovereignty
The following is a summary of the letter sent to Crispin Blunt MP responding to his
letter to Prime Minister Boris Johnson over the Israeli proposals in the ‘West Bank’.
Dear Mr Blunt,
Israel extending Sovereignty in parts of ‘the West Bank’
We are responding to the letter that you and a number of Members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords sent
to the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary on 1st May 2020. We challenge the assertion that extending sovereignty by the
State of Israel over Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria (aka ‘the West Bank’), and indeed any Jewish presence there, is a
violation of international law. Like so many who deny Israel’s rights in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, you start the clock in 1967,
and the prior history and recognition of legal rights are ignored.
The San Remo Resolution
The legal right of the Jewish people to re-constitute their historic homeland was recognised at the San Remo Conference of
1920 and by virtue of the Mandate for Palestine that resulted from it. This was unanimously endorsed by all 51 nations that
were in the League of Nations, which then constituted the entire international community. International Lawyer Dr Cynthia D
Wallace writes: “The Mandate system had been set up under Article 22 of the Covenant of the newly formed League of Nations.
At San Remo, the Mandate for Palestine was entrusted to Great Britain as a ‘sacred trust of civilization’, and the language of the
Balfour Declaration was enshrined in both the San Remo Resolution and the League Mandate, which stand on their own as valid
international legal instruments with the full force of treaty law.”
Territorially the legal right of the Arabs to self-determination was accorded to them by the Mandates for Syria and Lebanon
(under the French), and Mesopotamia – now Iraq – (under the British), and later in Transjordan, which was originally part of the
Mandate for Palestine.
The Legal Obligations of The Mandate for Palestine
The Mandate document legally obligated Britain, as the Mandatory Power, to work with the Jewish Agency to create suitable
conditions for the Jewish National Home and to encourage Jewish immigration and close settlement of the land with the view
to ultimate self-government (i.e. statehood). While the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish population were to
be protected, the political rights of self-determination were reserved for the Jewish people.
The 1939 White Paper
Basically, due to Arab insurgency under the leadership of the Mufti of Jerusalem, the radical Islamist Haj Amin Al-Husseini,
Britain failed to carry out its legal obligations. The 1939 White Paper severely restricted Jewish immigration at a time when
millions in Europe were desperate to flee from the Nazis. The British policy in the 1939 White Paper stated that the total Jewish
population of Palestine must not exceed one third, which would make the Jewish National Home ungovernable by the Jews,
despite having been legally granted the political rights of self-government.
The Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations deemed the 1939 White Paper to be a violation of the
Mandate, and in the House of Commons Winston Churchill spoke vehemently against the majority Conservative government’s
policy. Instead of being able to find refuge in their National Home, many of the Jews in Europe were slaughtered by the Nazis.
There is no doubt that the British policy has left the blood of at least hundreds of thousands of Jews on our hands.
The Rights given in the Mandates enshrined in the UN Charter
The rights of the beneficiaries of all the League of Nations Mandates were carried over into Article 80 of the United Nations
founding Charter. Dr Wallace explains: “Article 80 of the UN Charter assumes the powers given to the League of Nations, so that
anything that was decided under the League of Nations is still legally binding under the UN Charter.”
The Atlee-Bevin government became opposed to the whole concept of there ever being a Jewish state, and actively opposed it –
in other words a complete betrayal of the Mandate. A rigorous naval blockade of Palestine was used to stop Jewish survivors of
the Holocaust from reaching their ancestral homeland.
The 1947 Partition Plan
The 1947 Partition Plan – UNGA Resolution 181 – is often seen as sanctioning the legal right of the Palestinian Arabs to a state
west of the Jordan River. UN General Assembly Resolutions are not legally binding, they are no more than recommendations.
The Arab rejection of Resolution 181 effectively rendered it null and void.
Acquisition of Territory through War
International law is crystal clear about prohibiting the acquisition of territory through war. This applies to the Arab invasion of
the newborn State of Israel on 15th May 1948. The Arab Legion was led by a serving British Army General, Sir John Bagot Glubb
(aka ‘Glubb Pasha’). One would presume that, as a senior serving British Army Officer, he would have been under orders from
Whitehall. In leading this illegal invasion, Britain itself was arguably in breach of Article 2 of the UN Charter. Moreover, the
Jordanians ‘ethnically cleansed’ its conquered territory of its Jewish population, which today is considered a war crime.
International lawyer, Andrew Tucker says: “Jordan, Syria, Egypt had no claim to Jerusalem or ‘the West Bank’ – on the basis of any
doctrinal principle of international law.”
Jordan’s subsequent annexation of its conquered territory was only recognised by Britain, Pakistan and Iraq. The United Nations
never recognised Jordan’s sovereignty over the territory it renamed as ‘the West Bank’. Neither did the Arab League. Quite
simply, as a result of a ‘war of aggression’, it was illegal under the UN Charter, which is treaty law.
8 IN TOUCH • 3 rd Quarter 2020