The provisions of this Mandate are still in full force and effect

By Ted Belman

In 1920 the victors over the Ottoman Empire in WWI met to redraw her borders as they saw fit.  This they had every right to do by international law.. The San Remo Resolution incorporated the Balfour Declaration of 1917 by being

“in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, 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.”.

This resolution was enshrined in the Palestine Mandate in 1922 by the League of  Nations pursuant to the provisions of Article 22 of the its Covenant. The provisions of this Mandate are still in full force and effect..

  • 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
  • Britain, as the Mandatory Power was duty bound to fulfill its Mandate
  • 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.
  • they British were required to take whatever measures  which were necessary to bring this about
  • The Jewish people were permitted under the terms of the mandate, and encouraged to settle in every square inch of Palestine from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River including Judea Samaria and Gaza.
  • ART. 27. The consent of the Council of the League of Nations is required for any modification of the terms of this mandate.
  • Thus the British had no right to change the mandate without full consent of the League of Nations  a consent which they were never given.
  • Both the San Remo Resolution and the first draft of the Mandate applied to lands lying on both sides of the Jordan River. Before the Mandate was finalized Britain gave the land lying to the East of the Jordan River, amounting to 77.5% of the land awarded to the Jews at San Remo, to the Hashemite Kingdom so that Jordan could be created.  Thus the inhabitants of Jordan were Palestinians. In effect a Palestinian State was created. That was the first two-state solution.
  • Britain gave the Golan to Syria in 1923.although the Southern Golan was originally granted to the Jews by San Remo Resolution.

Did you know

  • Both their Excellencies, the Emir Feisal and Abdullah approved the League of Nations decisions.  At different points in history,  Emir Feisal, in an agreement with Weitzman, agreed to support the Zionist claim on both sides of the Jordan river, and later  Abdullah, agreed with Churchill to support the Zionist claim to the territory from the Jordan river to the Mediterranean, including Judea and Samaria and Gaza;

Their undertaking on behalf of the Arabs is binding on the Arabs. The agreement was you agree to my border and  I would agree with yours later claims  by the Arabs  that the British made them some different promises  were denied by the McMahon


“The Lodge-Fish Resolution of September 21, 1922; this was a Joint Resolution passed by both houses of the U.S. Congress and signed by President Warren Harding, endorsing the Balfour Declaration with slight variations. This made the text of the Joint Resolution part of the law of the United States until this very day”. –  Howard Grief .

This resolution confirmed the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine – anywhere between the Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea.


A Convention between the USA and Great Britain was signed on Dec 3, 1924. It enshrined an agreement between them whereby American interests in Palestine were safe guarded. This agreement contained he full text of the Mandate for Palestine.

According to Howard Grief,

Article VI(2) of the U.S. Constitution, which provides inter alia that “all treaties made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land” and Article II, Section III, which provides that the President of the United States “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed”. The word “laws” would naturally have included the 1924 treaty.

“The rights of the Jewish People to Palestine became embodied in U.S. law, as a result of the 1924 treaty. Those rights have never been repealed and remain intact (see next document), even though the 1924 treaty itself has expired with the expiry of the Mandate. Therefore any policy adopted by the U.S. that runs counter to those recognized rights is subject to legal challenge. The U.S. violates Jewish rights by opposing Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria and, formerly, Gaza since in endorsing the concept of the Jewish National Home as set out in the Balfour Declaration and in the Mandate, the U.S. legally committed itself to approving the establishment of future Jewish settlements all over the entire area of Palestine in accordance with Articles 6 and 11 of the Mandate. The establishment of settlements was the primary means to reconstitute the Jewish National Home and hence to implement the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate. For the very same reasons, the U.S. also violates those rights by advocating the establishment of a second Arab state in Palestine under the Road Map Peace Plan and by not recognizing Israeli rule and sovereignty over the united city of Jerusalem.”


Article 80(1)   …. nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.


  • The South West Africa ruling on mandates.
  • Article 70 (1)(b) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

No rights emanating out of  a mandate will expire at the expiration of  a mandate

  • The League of Nations had no right to alter the Mandate after it was approved. Any changes would require the agreement of the Jews who were the beneficiaries.
  • “This treaty which was concluded by the principal powers, in affect, as representative of the League of Nations, is binding on the League, particularly after it approved it.  The League cannot therefore change the mandate provisions. (Nor, of course, does the Mandatory have that right)” (*1651 pg 404) Gauthier

Thus the United Nations inherited the Mandate from the dying League of Nations, and was bound by its terms.

  • “Accordingly the United Nations could not acquire rights in Palestine that did not belong to the League of Nations, nor could it usurp the rights from the beneficiaries of the Mandate.  Moreover it could not acquire sovereignty in any part of Palestine.” Gauthier
  • The only borders under international law on the UN books are these borders, which the UN inherited from the League of Nations, Namely; the whole territory from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Including Judea Samaria Gaza,

Initially the mandate was for Israel’s borders to be on both sides of the Jordan River.  But Britain gave 77.5 % of Palestine to Jordan

All the territory west of the Jordan River to the Mediterranean was left, for the Jewish people to reconstitute their national homeland in.

Nothing happened in law to repeal these borders.

  • And if that is so and the UN inherited the Leagues position and it may not vary them then how   can they justify asking Israel to withdraw from Judea and Samaria. Land that belongs to them under international law. Land that was taken from them by force 1948 1949 ,   land they took back  in 1967 when the collective Arab world declared a war on Israel for the sole purpose of  wiping it of the map .
  • How can they ask them to refrain from settling in all parts of Israel including Judea Samaria  Gaza and the Golan if its there in the mandate,  and the  unexpired mandate rights Jewish people are entitled under international law to settle anywhere in the west bank.
  • The General Assembly does not have the right to create enforceable resolutions or borders. So even if the Arabs had accepted the Green Line, these borders would not have been legally enforceable.
  • Even if  the General assembly  did  have that right  to draw borders which it did not  –the Arab did not accept   the General assembly proposed borders. Acceptance by all parties is a pre requisite for a contract to be completed and binding on all parties. Therefore the green line could not be considered a new border  and the borders from the Mediterranean sea to the Jordan river must still be in full force and affect/
  • . For the UN To make a resolution. it must be lawful.   It can not make  a none lawful resolution . it  must be based on  existing  law.   Or laws.        Pursuant to the Doctrine of estoppels  The UN may not make laws, Treaties contrary to valid treaties it has on its books which it swore to uphold.  According to international law none of the rights acquired by the mandated territory through mandates have expired at the expiration of the mandates,

Based on the  following 3 treaties.

  • The South West Africa ruling on mandates.
  • Article 70 (1)(b) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
  • Article 80. of the UN charter

Pursuant to the above  noted treaties none of the rights given to Israel under the San Remo Resolution or the mandates have expired or lost. Including the borders from the Mediterranean sea to the Jordan River.

  • These legal rights pursuant to international law have not been repealed in law.
  • The UN may not change any of Israel’s right to its borders, and political right to all its territory, without all the parties consent.  And that consent to taking huge portion of Israel land may not be extracted under duress.
  • In Law  pursuant to the Doctrine of estoppels ,The UN, US, The Europeans, may not take steps which run contrary to an existing agreement it inherited from the League of nations  agreement. to the Doctrine of estoppels ,
  • In law pursuant  all members and signatories of the League of Nations  approval of the mandate pursuant  to the Doctrine of estoppels ,The League’s members also may not take steps which run contrary to an existing agreement which they signed to uphold, and which are still in force and affect.
  • . The General Assembly does not have the right to create enforceable resolutions or borders. So even if the Arabs had accepted the Green Line, these borders would not have been legally enforceable.

The UNGA proposed a Partition Plan in 1947 inviting the Jews and the Arabs to create states in each of their allotted territory.  Israel seized the opportunity and declared the State of Israel in 1948.  The Arabs rejected the invitation and invaded Israel instead.

This war ended in an Armistice Agreement which demarked the armistice line in green. This line is now referred to as the Greenline. While Israel was prepared to accept this line as the border, the Arabs insisted that the Greenline was not a permanent border.

Thus the Egyptian-Israeli agreement stated “The Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.” A similar provision was included in the agreement with Jordan.

After The ’67 War, SC Res 242 authorized Israel to remain in possession of the land until they had an agreement for “secure and recognized borders”. Once again the Arabs rejected this resolution. Nevertheless it was included in the Oslo Agreements. When the Roadmap was forced on Israel, The U.S. inserted the Arab Peace Initiative (Saudi Plan) which proposed the Greenline as the border with minor swaps of land. This is further evidence that of the Arab rejection of Res 242 and defensible borders. Bottom line is that the borders must be agreed upon. But the Arabs don’t want to negotiate borders, they want the international community to impose such borders on Israel. Keep in mind that when the Armistice Agreements were signed, the Arabs rejected the Greenline as a border. Thus by having the international community impose this border on Israel, the Arabs themselves will continue to challenge it.

In the meantime, the provisions of the Mandate apply on all parties and the UN.  Thus Jews have the right to settle anywhere in Judea and Samaria. The UN has no right to impose borders on Israel. This status will only be changed by negotiations and agreement.

Furthermore, Israel has no obligation to withdraw from all the territories as suggested by the Saudi Plan and its backers.

September 28, 2010 | 1 Comment »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

1 Comment / 1 Comment

  1. A brief history of falestin:

    The Greco-Romans (first as outright pagans, then as (pagan) christians) stole Israel from the Jews. They renamed it palestina. They also destroyed Jerusalem and rebuilt it with the new name Aelia.

    The muslim arabs then came and stole palestine from the christian greco-romans. Neither the names palestine nor Jerusalem appear in the koran. The arabs asked the christians what were the names of those places. They then retained the christian names falestin and ilya (for Jerusalem).

    The muslim Turks eventually stole falestin from the muslim arabs. After 400 years, the christian british stole it from the Turks. The christan british allowed the Jews to buy lands in falestin for a Jewish national home.

    If you noticed, the Jews are the only ones who actually bought any land legally. Under islamic law, the Turkish sultan originally owned all the land, and his subjects rented it from him. So the muslim arabs who now call themselves falestinians never actually owned any land; they were tenant farmers working the land for its legal owners.

    How’s that for irony? The Jews are the only people with a legal claim to the land, having actually bought and paid for it. But they are called “colonialists” and “illegal occupiers” and are told to “go back where they came from”. Meantime, the arab tenant farmers with no legal claim to the land are called the “rightful owners”. Can you imagine what would happen in America if the negro tenant farmers laid claim to the plantations, or the native Americans laid claim to their ancestral lands?

    (And have I told you lately what my opinion is of non-Jews?)