Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Israel/Palestine
In reply to the discussion: Israel’s jihad is mine [View all]shira
(30,109 posts)31. Here's the International Law you're asking for...
http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/mandate_for_palestine/mandate_for_palestine.htm
The Mandate Defined Where Jews Are and Are Not Permitted to Settle
The Mandate for Palestine document did not set final borders. It left this for the Mandatory to stipulate in a binding appendix to the final document in the form of a memorandum. However, Article 6 of the Mandate clearly states:
Article 25 of the Mandate for Palestine entitled the Mandatory to change the terms of the Mandate in the territory east of the Jordan River:
Great Britain activated this option in the above-mentioned memorandum of September 16, 1922, which the Mandatory sent to the League of Nations and which the League subsequently approved making it a legally binding integral part of the Mandate.
Thus the Mandate for Palestine brought to fruition a fourth Arab state east of the Jordan River, realized in 1946 when the Hashemite Kingdom of Trans-Jordan was granted independence from Great Britain.
All the clauses concerning a Jewish National Home would not apply to this territory Trans-Jordan of the original Mandate, as is clearly stated:
The creation of an Arab state in eastern Palestine (today Jordan) on 77 percent of the landmass of the original Mandate intended for a Jewish National Home in no way changed the status of Jews west of the Jordan River, nor did it inhibit their right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
These documents are the last legally binding documents regarding the status of what is commonly called the West Bank and Gaza.
The September 16, 1922 memorandum is also the last modification of the official terms of the Mandate on record by the League of Nations or by its legal successor the United Nations in accordance with Article 27 of the Mandate that states unequivocally:
United Nations Charter recognizes the UNs obligation to uphold the commitments of its predecessor the League of Nations.25
The Mandate Defined Where Jews Are and Are Not Permitted to Settle
The Mandate for Palestine document did not set final borders. It left this for the Mandatory to stipulate in a binding appendix to the final document in the form of a memorandum. However, Article 6 of the Mandate clearly states:
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 25 of the Mandate for Palestine entitled the Mandatory to change the terms of the Mandate in the territory east of the Jordan River:
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 provision of this Mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions ...
Great Britain activated this option in the above-mentioned memorandum of September 16, 1922, which the Mandatory sent to the League of Nations and which the League subsequently approved making it a legally binding integral part of the Mandate.
Thus the Mandate for Palestine brought to fruition a fourth Arab state east of the Jordan River, realized in 1946 when the Hashemite Kingdom of Trans-Jordan was granted independence from Great Britain.
All the clauses concerning a Jewish National Home would not apply to this territory Trans-Jordan of the original Mandate, as is clearly stated:
The following provisions of the Mandate for Palestine are not applicable to the territory known as Trans-Jordan, which comprises all territory lying to the east of a line drawn from ... up the centre of the Wady Araba, Dead Sea and River Jordan. ... His Majestys Government accept[s] full responsibility as Mandatory for Trans-Jordan.
The creation of an Arab state in eastern Palestine (today Jordan) on 77 percent of the landmass of the original Mandate intended for a Jewish National Home in no way changed the status of Jews west of the Jordan River, nor did it inhibit their right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
These documents are the last legally binding documents regarding the status of what is commonly called the West Bank and Gaza.
The September 16, 1922 memorandum is also the last modification of the official terms of the Mandate on record by the League of Nations or by its legal successor the United Nations in accordance with Article 27 of the Mandate that states unequivocally:
The consent of the Council of the League of Nations is required for any modification of the terms of this mandate.24
United Nations Charter recognizes the UNs obligation to uphold the commitments of its predecessor the League of Nations.25
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
77 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
"They prefer the extremely fanatical, rightwing warmongering totalitarian Islamists
R. Daneel Olivaw
Jan 2013
#3
The doctor makes some very valid points which should be lauded, but since I am not one of the
R. Daneel Olivaw
Jan 2013
#5
Hebron's home to the most extreme and violent settlers who terrorise Palestinians...
Violet_Crumble
Jan 2013
#21
Even if there's a few who aren't, why should we ignore the vast majority who are?
Violet_Crumble
Jan 2013
#74
This dehumanization of yours, ie., racists, colonialists, apartheidists, thieves...
shira
Jan 2013
#16
Violet, you deny there's a Jewish nation (people) so are you an extreme hatemonger/bigot?
shira
Jan 2013
#43
You falsely claimed that I deny the existance of Jews as a people. You need to apologise...
Violet_Crumble
Jan 2013
#56
Wrong. I've done nothing of the sort. I don't believe anything of the sort.
Violet_Crumble
Jan 2013
#64
That's not what was written. You would know it if you would settle down
R. Daneel Olivaw
Jan 2013
#69
I do applaud you, my friend, for scouring the internets to find such a fine example
R. Daneel Olivaw
Jan 2013
#35
"I think it's funny that anything sourced from there would be deemed 'the truth'."
R. Daneel Olivaw
Jan 2013
#67
If you wish to rebut the wik with something more reliable than M&F.org
R. Daneel Olivaw
Jan 2013
#66
Are you for real? Yr now going to deny that someone who denies the Palestinians are a people is RW?
Violet_Crumble
Jan 2013
#46
Uh, the guy's a fucking bigoted RW piece of crap. So sorry if that offends you...
Violet_Crumble
Jan 2013
#50
And that guy makes the same argument you do WRT an ethnicity seeing itself as a people.
shira
Jan 2013
#52
*sigh* What part of what I've said isn't sinking in? I do NOT deny the existence of Jews...
Violet_Crumble
Jan 2013
#55
My poor misguided friend. They're not dehumanizations when they aparently are true.
R. Daneel Olivaw
Jan 2013
#68
LW Israeli Jews don't make broadbrush comments about Jews the way she does about Muslims.
Violet_Crumble
Jan 2013
#19
This has something to do with the general savagery of people in those days, not with Jews.
LeftishBrit
Jan 2013
#70