1922 - Final territory assigned to the Jewish National Home - Draiman

1922 - Final territory assigned to the Jewish National Home

1922 - Final territory assigned to the Jewish National Home

---

The Origin of the “Mandate for Palestine”

The legally binding Mandate for Palestine document was conferred on April 24 1920, at the San Remo Conference and its terms outlined in the Treaty of Sevres on August 10 1920. The Mandate’s terms were finalized by the Council of the League of Nations on July 24 1922, and became operational in 1923.
This historical League of Nations document, laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, a 10,000 square mile area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered in international law and valid to this day.¹
The UN Charter does not grant the General Assembly or the International Court of Justice the authority to assign or affect ‘ownership’ of the Territories.

---

The Mandate Defined Where Jews are and are not Permitted to Settle

The six page “Mandate for Palestine” document did not set the borders – leaving this for the Mandator to stipulate in a binding appendix to the final document in the form of a memorandum, but Article 6 of the Mandate says clearly:

“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” [italics by author].

Article 25 of the “Mandate for Palestine” entitled the Mandatory to change the terms of the Mandate in the part of the Mandate 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 homeland would not apply to this part (Trans-Jordan) of the original Mandate, stating clearly:

“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 Majesty’s 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 land mass of the original Mandate for Jews, in no way changed the status of Jews west of the Jordan River and their right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, 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 memorandum (regarding Article 25) is also the last modification of the Mandate on record² 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.”

United Nations Charter Article 73 recognizes the UN’s commitments of its predecessor – the League of Nations – and promises to carry through to fruition the mandate system the League of Nations created, enshrined in Article 22 of the League of Nations Charter.³

---

Political Rights Were Granted to Jews Only

The Mandate for Palestine clearly differentiates between political rights – referring to Jewish self-determination as an emerging polity – and civil and religious rights, referring to guarantees of equal personal freedoms to non-Jewish residents as individuals and within select communities. Not once are Arabs as a people mentioned in the Mandate for Palestine. At no point in the entire document is there any granting of political rights to non-Jewish entities (i.e., Arabs) because political rights to self-determination as a polity for Arabs were guaranteed in three other parallel Class “A” mandates – in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. Article 2 of the Mandate for Palestine states explicitly that the Mandatory should:

“… 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.” [italics by author]

Jewish Rights to Palestine were internationally guaranteed.

In the first Report of The High Commissioner on the Administration of Palestine 1920-1925 to Winston Churchill, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, published in April 1925, the most senior official of the Mandate for Palestine - the High Commissioner for Palestine, underscored how “international guarantee[s]” for the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine were achieved:

“The [Balfour] Declaration was endorsed at the time by several of the Allied Governments; it was reaffirmed by the Conference of the Principal Allied Powers at San Remo in 1920; it was subsequently endorsed by unanimous resolutions of both Houses of the Congress of the United States; it was embodied in the Mandate for Palestine approved by the League of Nations in 1922; it was declared, in a formal statement of policy issued by the Colonial Secretary in the same year, ‘not to be susceptible of change’; and it has been the guiding principle in their direction of the affairs of Palestine of four successive British Governments. The policy was fixed and internationally guaranteed.”

United State Government Policy

On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the Mandate for Palestine - the irrevocable right to settle in the area of Palestine - anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea .
On September 21, 1922 President Warren G. Harding, (the twenty-ninth president 1921-1923) signed the joint resolution of approval to establish a Jewish Homeland in Palestine.

---

Article 80 - “Mandate for Palestine” Valid to this Day

International law, the UN Charter, and specifically Article 80 of the UN Charter implicitly recognize the “Mandate for Palestine” of the League of Nations. This Mandate granted Jews the irrevocable right to settle in the area of Palestine, anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, a right unaltered in international law and valid to this day.
The International Court of Justice reaffirmed the validity of Article 80 in three separate cases:

• Advisory Opinion of 11 July 1950, in the “… question concerning the International States of South West Africa.”⁴
• Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971 “The International Court of Justice has consistently recognized that the Mandate survived the demise of the League [of Nations]…” Security Council resolution 276 (1970).⁵ (11654) [italics by author].
• Advisory Opinion of July 9 2004 in the case of the “legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory”⁶

In other words, neither the ICJ nor the UN General Assembly can arbitrarily change the status of Jewish settlement as set forth in the “Mandate for Palestine,” an international accord that was never amended.
All of western Palestine, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, including the West Bank and Gaza, remains open to Jewish settlement under international law until a legally binding document – in Israel’s case, a peace treaty between Arabs and Jews that was called for in Security Resolution 242 and 338 – changes this.
Professor Rostow’s position concurred with the ICJ’s opinion as to the “sacredness” of such trusts:

“A trust” – as in Article 80 of the UN Charter “does not end because the trustee dies … the Jewish right of settlement in the whole of western Palestine – the area west of the Jordan – survived the British withdrawal in 1948. … They are parts of the mandate territory, now legally occupied by Israel with the consent of the Security Council.”⁷

The legal uncontested claim of Israel to the Jewish Land in the Mandate for Palestine - by YJ Draiman

The legal uncontested claim of Israel to the Jewish Land in the Mandate for Palestine - by YJ Draiman

The legal uncontested claim of Israel to the Jewish Land in the Mandate for Palestine

When the U.N. passes a resolution it is only a recommendation. If accepted by the parties it becomes a valid agreement and or Treaty.

In the case of Israel and the Arabs and the U.N. resolution of 1947 for the creation of a Jewish State and an Arab State. Since the Arabs did not accept the U.N. resolution of 1947 for a Jewish State and an Arab State. The resolution is not binding and Israel's falls back on the San Remo Treaty of 1920 with all its terms without any deviation.

If anyone is contesting the legitimacy and sovereignty including territorial boundaries assigned based on the San Remo Treaty of 1920. You now have to contest and question the legitimacy and sovereignty including the territorial boundaries of the 21 Arab State created by the same Allied powers including Tranjordan (Jordan).

Therefore if you accept the 21 Arab State and Jordan as assigned by the Allied Powers after WWI, you must accept Israel's sovereignty and boundaries as stated in the San Remo Treaty which assigned the Mandate for Palestine entirely which includes Jerusalem to the Jewish people.

YJ Draiman

President - Americans for Safe Israel in Greater Los Angeles

P.S. Israel has resettled the million plus Jewish people expelled from Arab countries. The Arabs must resettle the Arab-Palestinian refugees in their lands.

90 Years On - San Remo

90 Years On San Remo

Castello Devachan stands on a hillside at the end of Corso degli Inglesi, overlooking the Italian Riviera town of San Remo. The villa itself has a chequered history, including use as the local Gestapo HQ during the Second World War, but its claim to fame dates from April 1920 when it was used by the newly-formed League of Nations to house a conference to decide the future of the Middle East in the aftermath of the First World War. Here lie the beginnings of the re-born State of Israel, and the Agreements made at that conference are still valid today and vital to a proper understanding of Israel's right to its land, including territory currently occupied by Palestinian Arabs.

To celebrate the 90th Anniversary of the San Remo Agreement, the European Coalition for Israel held a commemorative event over the weekend of 24th/25th April this year. This took place on the same dates, and in the same place, as the original conference ninety years earlier. We came together to declare that the original agreement still stands to day, and to hear legal argument from international scholars concerning Israel's current occupation of 'Palestine'. This article is a summary of the information shared at the commemoration.

Before we examine the Agreement made in 1920, let us back-track a few years. In November 1917 Britain issued what has come to be known as the Balfour Declaration, stating that “His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing should 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.” At the time, the province of Palestine was still part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire, with which Britain and her allies were at war.

The League of Nations

Within weeks of this Declaration being published, Britain had liberated Palestine from Turkish rule, and was therefore in a position to implement its policy. Watching from the other side of the Atlantic, US President Woodrow Wilson issued what has become known as the Fourteen

Points. Included as part of point 12 was the statement that the “Turkish portion of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development”. These fourteen points became generally accepted by other nations following the end of the War, and formed the basis for the League of Nations, which was established by the Treaty of Versailles.

We come now to the San Remo Conference, held at Villa Devachan from 19th to 26th April 1920.

This was an international meeting of the post-World War I Allied Supreme Council, attended by the four Principal Allied Powers of World War I who were represented by the Prime Ministers of Britain (David Lloyd George), France (Alexandre Millerand) and Italy (Francesco Nitti) and by

Japan's Ambassador Keishiro Matsui. The USA were also present, with observer status.

This Conference got to work on deciding the future of the Middle East following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. In accordance with Woodrow Wilson's fourteen points, the victorious allies were not going to acquire new colonies in the area, but were going to establish new sovereign states there over a period of time. The parties recognized that not all the areas of the Middle East were yet ready for full independence, so they agreed to set up Mandates for each territory, with one of the Allied Powers being put in charge of implementing each Mandate.

Initially there were four Mandates agreed, for Lebanon, Syria, Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Palestine. In the first three Mandates, it was recognized that the indigenous people were able to govern themselves, with the Mandatory Power assisting in setting up the institutions of government where necessary.

The Mandate for Palestine

That was not true of Palestine, as this was to become a homeland for the Jewish people and the vast majority of them were not yet living in the Land. The Mandate for Palestine was thus completely different from the others, and set out how the Land was to be settled by Jews in preparation for when they could form a viable nation there.

There are a number of points which must be noted concerning this Mandate:

1. For the first time in history, Palestine became a legal entity. Hitherto it had been just a geographical area.

2. All prior agreements before the San Remo conference were terminated. This includes both the Sykes-Picot agreement and the Faisal-Weizmann agreement.

3. The Balfour Declaration was recognised and incorporated into international law.

4. Sovereignty over Palestine was vested in the Jewish people.

5. The Jewish people became the national beneficiary, based on self-determination, even though most of the Jews had not yet returned to their Land, because of their historical connection to it.

6. Transfer of the title on Palestine cannot be revoked, either by the League of Nations or the United Nations as its successor, unless the people of Palestine want to give up their title.

7. The Mandate for Palestine was to be given to Britain as the Mandatory Power.

8. The San Remo Agreement was included in the Treaty of Sèvres and confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24th July 1922.

9. The Arabs gained equivalent rights in Lebanon, Syria and Mesopotamia.

10. The San Remo Agreement marks the end of the longest colonized period in history, lasting around 1,800 years.

It is therefore very clear that the Jewish State draws its legal existence from the San Remo Agreement of 1920, and not the United Nations Partition Plan of 1947 (Resolution 181 which is only a recommendation). All 51 nations of the League of Nations voted in favor of this Agreement.

Boundaries of the Land

The exact boundaries of the Land covered by the Mandate for Palestine were not defined at San Remo, and neither were the boundaries for the other Mandate territories. A map agreed by Emir Faizal and Chaim Weizmann prior to the conference had placed the eastern border along roughly the same line as the border from Second Temple times, but Britain decided that it should be the Jordan River instead.

Article 25 of the Mandate for Palestine gave the Mandatory Power permission to postpone or withhold most of the terms of the Mandate in the area of land east of the Jordan river, if it did not consider them to be applicable. Britain exercised that power in a memorandum to the League

of Nations on 16th September 1922, which the League subsequently approved. This brought into being a new Mandate, for Trans-Jordan, also to be administered by Britain. It is interesting to note that the League of Nations referred to this territory as "The Trans-Jordan Province of

Palestine" right up until the last meeting of the League on 18th April 1946. Trans-Jordan (now known as Jordan) gained its independence from Britain in 1946 when it became a Hashemite Kingdom.

Since then there have been no other modifications to the Mandate for Palestine, and thus the provisions of the Mandate are still applicable to the whole of the land of Palestine west of the Jordan river, including what is today referred to as the 'West Bank' and Gaza Strip.

The end of the Mandate

History demonstrates clearly that Britain failed miserably to carry out the sacred trust invested in it by the League of Nations. After the Second World War, the League of Nations was disbanded and a new organization, the United Nations, set up. This new body inherited all the agreements made by its predecessor, including the Mandate for Palestine. In 1947 Britain decided to terminate and abandon her stewardship of the Mandate, and notified the United Nations accordingly. It should be noted that the Mandate itself was not terminated, but only Britain's stewardship of it. In a similar way, Britain's stewardship of the Mandate for Trans-Jordan had been terminated the previous year by that country being granted independence.

The UN proposed a Partition Plan for Palestine, recommending the setting up of an Arab state, a Jewish state and an international zone to include Jerusalem. This Resolution (181) was only a recommendation to consider partition. It was not an injunction that must be obeyed.   The recommendation was accepted by the Jewish leadership but rejected by the Arabs, and had no legal validity once rejected.

When the State of Israel was declared at the end of the British Mandate period, it became the fulfillment of the Mandate for Palestine, which had been created in order to bring about this outcome in due course. Although the manner by which the fulfillment came about left much to be desired, the Jewish State of Israel was what was envisaged by the writers of the San Remo Agreement nearly thirty years earlier. Effectively, this was recognized by the United Nations when it accepted Israel into membership on 11th May 1949.

Israel's War of Independence

Immediately after Israel's Declaration of Independence, five surrounding Arab nations invaded the new state. By the time that hostilities ceased, Israel had lost some of its territory to the attackers - the Golan Heights to Syria, Judea and Samaria (including the eastern part of Jerusalem) to Trans-Jordan, and the Gaza Strip to Egypt. It is universally accepted that it is inadmissible to acquire territory by attacking another country, so the actions of the Arab nations were in fact illegal under international law. Whereas Syria and Egypt only occupied their captured territories, Trans-Jordan annexed Judea and Samaria and called it the West Bank, in order to link the territory with the East Bank of the Jordan. This annexation was only recognized by two countries in the world, Britain and Pakistan, and has no effect upon the illegality of Trans-

Jordan's acquisition of the Land.

The Six Day War

Israel's Six Day War of June 1967 resulted in the liberation and recapture of those territories it had lost in 1948. From Israel's perspective this was a defensive war, as Egypt, for example, had already declared war by blocking the Straits of Hormuz in the Gulf of Aqaba. Similarly, shortly after the war began, Jordan also declared war on Israel. There are therefore two excellent reasons why Israel's liberation and recapturing of the territories it lost in 1948 was not illegal.

1. The territories belonged to Israel, as the fulfillment of the Mandate for Palestine, in the first place, so they were only retaking what already belonged to them anyway.

2. Israel was not acquiring territory as an aggressor, but in a defensive war forced upon it by the surrounding Arab nations.

After returning the Sinai to Egypt in the peace agreement of 26th March 1979, the territory under Israeli control was almost identical to that which comprised the Mandate for Palestine.

Subsequently, Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip on 12th September 2005, but did not pass control to any other state. Thus, legally, the Gaza Strip remains part of Israel's territory, even though not occupied by it at this point.

Illegally Occupied Territory?

It should be obvious from all this that the expression “illegally occupied territory” is totally inapplicable to Israel's presence in, for example, Judea and Samaria (the 'West Bank'). A state cannot 'illegally occupy' a territory that belongs to it in the first place!

I am sure that we are all well aware from the Bible that God has granted to the Jewish people the whole of the land currently comprising the State of Israel, as well as Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. Israel's legal entitlement to these lands confirms the Word of God on the matter for those of us who believe the Bible. For others, and particularly for those who would deny Israel's right to the territories it recaptured in 1967, the legal case set out here is a challenge that needs to be addressed.

Acknowledgments

I am indebted to Jacques Gauthier BA, LLB, PhD; Howard Grief, author of "The Legal

Foundation and Borders of Israel under International Law"; Salomon Benzimra P.Eng; and Eli Hertz, President of Myths and Facts Inc, for material used in the preparation of this article.

Further information is available on www.mythsandfacts.org

Roy Thurley

Who Stole the Land of Israel? - Draiman

Who Stole the Land of Israel?

Why do the anti-Zionists feel that a thousand-year old claim by Arabs who were never ruled by Palestinian Arabs has legitimacy, while a 1,900-year claim by Jews to the land should be rejected as absurd?

So let us see if we have this straight. The anti-Zionists claim that the Jews have no right to the land of Israel because before Israel was re-created in 1948, it had been almost 1,900 years since the last time that the Jews exercised sovereignty over the Land of Israel. And the anti-Zionists claim that it is absurd to argue that anyone still has rights to land that was last governed with sovereignty 1,900 years ago.
And on what basis do they argue that the Arabs have some legitimate claim to these same lands? On the basis of the claim that the Arabs last exercised sovereignty over that land 1,000 years ago.

Are you all with me? 1,900 year-old-claims are inadmissible. Thousand-year-old claims trump them and are indisputable.
Now let us emphasize that even the thousand-year-old Arab claim is not the same thing as a claim on behalf of Palestinian [sic] Arabs. After all, the last time that Palestinian Arabs held sovereignty over the lands of "Palestine" was … never. There has never been a Palestinian Arab state in Palestine. Ever.

It is true that Arabs once exercised sovereignty over parts or all of historic Palestine. There were small Arab kingdoms in the south of "Palestine" already in late Biblical days, and they were important military and political allies of the Jews, who exercised sovereignty back then in the Land of Israel. After the rise of Islam, historic "Palestine" was indeed part of a larger Arab kingdom or caliphate. But that ended in 1071 CE, when Palestine came under the rule of the Suljuk Turks.

That was the last time Palestine had an Arab ruler. After that, it was always ruled by a long series of Ottomans, Mamluks, other Turks, Crusaders, British, and — briefly — French. And in any case, why does the fact that Palestine once belonged to a larger Arab empire make it any more "Arab" than the fact that it also was once part of larger Roman, Greek, Persian, Turkish, or British empires? Now it is true that historic Palestine probably once had a population majority who were Arabs, but today it has a population majority who are Jews.

So if population majorities are what determine legitimacy of sovereignty, Israel is at least as legitimate as any other country.
So why exactly do the anti-Zionists claim that a thousand-year old claim by Arabs who were never ruled by Palestinian Arabs has legitimacy, while a 1,900-year claim by Jews to the land should be rejected as absurd, even though the United Nations granted Israel sovereignty in 1947?

The anti-Zionists say it is because the thousand-year-old Arab claim is more recent than the older Jewish claim. But if national claims to lands become more legitimate when they are more recent, then surely the most legitimate of all is that of the Jews of Israel to the lands of Israel, because it is the most recent!

The other claim by the anti-Zionists is that Jews have no rights to the lands of Israel (historic Palestine) because they moved there from some other places. Now never mind that there was actually always a Jewish minority living in the lands of Israel even when it was under the sovereignty of Romans, Greeks, Arabs, Crusaders, Turks or British.

Does the fact that Jews moved to the land of Israel from other places disqualify them from exercising sovereignty there? The claim would be absurd enough even if we were to ignore that fact that most "Palestinian Arabs" also moved to Palestine from neighboring countries, starting in the late nineteenth century. But more generally, does the fact that a people moves from one locality to another deprive it of its claims to legitimate sovereignty in its new abode? Does this fact necessitate the conclusion that they need to pack up and leave, as the anti-Zionists insist?

If it does, then it goes without saying that the Americans and Canadians must lead the way and show the Israelis the light, by returning all lands that they seized from the Indians and the Mexicans to their original owners and going back to whence they came. For that matter, the Mexicans of Spanish ancestry also need to leave. The Anglo-Saxons, meaning the English, will be invited to turn the British Isles over to their rightful original Celtic and Druid owners, while they return to their own ancestral Saxon homeland in northern Germany and Denmark. The Danes of course will be asked to move aside, in fact to move back to their Norwegian and Swedish homelands, to make room for the returning Anglo-Saxons.

But that is just a beginning. The Spanish will be called upon to leave the Iberian Peninsula that they wrongfully occupy, and return it to the Celtiberians. Similarly the Portuguese occupiers will leave their lands and return them to the Lusitanians. The Magyars will go back where they came from and leave Hungary to its true owners. The Australians and New Zealanders obviously will have to end their occupations of lands that do not belong to them. The Thais will leave Thailand. The Bulgarians will return to their Volga homeland and abandon occupied Bulgaria. Anyone speaking Spanish will be expected to end his or her forced occupation of Latin America. It goes without saying that the French will lose almost all their lands to their rightful owners. The Turks will go back to Mongolia and leave Anatolia altogether, returning it to the Greeks. The Germans will go back to Gotland. The Italians will return the boot to the Etruscans and Greeks.

Ah, but that leaves the Arabs. First, all of northern Africa, from Mauritania to Egypt and Sudan, will have to be immediately abandoned by the illegal Arab occupiers and squatters, and returned to their lawful original Berber, Punic, Greek, and Vandal owners. Occupied Syria and Lebanon must be released at once from the cruel occupation of the Arab imperialist aggressors. Iraq must be returned to the Assyrians and Chaldeans. Southern Arabia must be returned to the Abyssinians. The Arabs may retain control of the central portion of the Arabian Peninsula as their homeland. But not the oil fields.

Oh, and the Palestinian infiltrators, usurpers and squatters will of course have to return the lands they are illegally and wrongfully occupying, turning them over to their legal and rightful owners, which would of course be the Jews!

Faisal–Weizmann Agreement -- Faisal-Frankfurter Correspondence At the Paris Peace Conference, 1919

Faisal–Weizmann Agreement

The Faisal–Weizmann Agreement was signed on 3 January 1919, by Emir Faisal (son of the King of Hejaz), who was for a short time King of the Arab Kingdom of Syria or Greater Syria in 1920, and was King of the Kingdom of Iraq from August 1921 to 1933, and Chaim Weizmann (later President of the World Zionist Organization) as part of the Paris Peace Conference, 1919 settling disputes stemming from World War I. It was a short-lived agreement for Arab–Jewish cooperation on the development of a Jewish homeland in Palestine and an Arab nation in a large part of the Middle East.

One or more of the Allies may have suggested that a representative of the Zionist Organization secure the agreement. The secret Sykes–Picot Agreement had called for an "Arab State or a Confederation of Arab States ... under the suzerainty of an Arab chief." The French and British also proposed an international administration, the form of which was to be decided upon after consultation with Russia, and subsequently in consultation with the other Allies, "and the representatives of the Shereef of Mecca."^[1]

1918. Emir Faisal I and Chaim Weizmann (left, wearing Arab headdress as a sign of friendship)

Contents

  

• 1Overview
• 2Background
• 3The agreement
  • 3.1Text of the Agreement
• 4Implementation
• 5Arab–Israeli peace diplomacy and treaties
• 6Footnotes
• 7References
• 8External links

Overview

Weizmann first met Faisal in June 1918, during the British advance from the South against the Ottoman Empire in World War I. As leader of an impromptu "Zionist Commission", Weizmann traveled to southern Transjordan for the meeting. The intended purpose was to forge an agreement between Faisal and the Zionist movement to support an Arab Kingdom and Jewish settlement in Palestine, respectively. The wishes of the Palestinian Arabs were to be ignored, and, indeed, both men seem to have held the Palestinian Arabs in considerable disdain. Weizmann had called them "treacherous", "arrogant", "uneducated", and "greedy" and had complained to the British that the system in Palestine did "not take into account the fact that there is a fundamental qualitative difference between Jew and Arab".^[2] After his meeting with Faisal, Weizmann allegedly reported that Faisal was "contemptuous of the Palestinian Arabs whom he doesn't even regard as Arabs".^[3]

In preparation for the meeting, British diplomat Mark Sykes had written to Faisal about the Jewish people, "I know that the Arabs despise, condemn, and hate the Jews" but he added "I speak the truth when I say that this race, despised and weak, is universal, is all-powerful and cannot be put down" and he suggested that Faisal view the Jews as a powerful ally.^[4] In the event, Weizmann and Faisal established an agreement under which Faisal would support close Jewish settlement in Palestine and reestablish their dominion, while the Zionist movement would assist in the development of the vast Arab nation that Faisal hoped to establish.

At their first meeting in June 1918 Weizmann had assured Faisal that "the Jews did not propose to set up a government of their own but wished to work under British protection, to colonize and develop Palestine without encroaching on any legitimate interests".^[5]Weizmann and Faisal met again later in 1918, while both were in London preparing their statements for the upcoming peace conference in Paris.

They signed the written agreement, which bears their names, on 3 January 1919. The next day, Weizmann arrived in Paris to head the Zionist delegation to the Peace Conference. It was a triumphal moment for Weizmann; it was an accord that climaxed years of negotiations and ceaseless shuttles between the Middle East and the capitals of Western Europe and that promised to usher in an era of peace and cooperation between the two principal ethnic groups of Palestine: Arabs and Jews.^[6]

Map showing the boundaries of Palestine proposed by Zionists at the Paris Conference, superimposed on modern boundaries.^{[citation needed]}

Background

Main article: McMahon–Hussein Correspondence

Henry McMahon had exchanged letters with Faisal's father Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca in 1915, in which he had promised Hussein control of Arab lands with the exception of "portions of Syria" lying to the west of"the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo". Palestine lies to the south of these areas and wasn't explicitly mentioned. That modern-day Lebanese region of the Mediterranean coast was set aside as part of a future French Mandate. After the war the extent of the coastal exclusion was hotly disputed. Hussein had protested that the Arabs of Beirut would greatly oppose isolation from the Arab state or states, but did not bring up the matter of Jerusalem or Palestine. Dr. Chaim Weizmann wrote in his autobiography Trial and Error that Palestine had been excluded from the areas that should have been Arab and independent. This interpretation was supported explicitly by the British government in the 1922 White Paper.

On the basis of McMahon's assurances the Arab Revolt began on 5 June 1916. However, the British and French also secretly concluded the Sykes–Picot Agreement on 16 May 1916.^[7] This agreement divided many Arab territories into British- and French-administered areas and allowed for the internationalization of Palestine.^[7] Hussein learned of the agreement when it was leaked by the new Russian government in December 1917, but was satisfied by two disingenuous telegrams from Sir Reginald Wingate, High Commissioner of Egypt, assuring him that the British government's commitments to the Arabs were still valid and that the Sykes-Picot Agreement was not a formal treaty.^[7]

According to Isaiah Friedman, Hussein was not perturbed by the Balfour Declaration and on 23 March 1918, in Al Qibla, the daily newspaper of Mecca, attested that Palestine was "a sacred and beloved homeland of its original sons," the Jews; "the return of these exiles to their homeland will prove materially and spiritually an experimental school for their [Arab] brethren." He called on the Arab population in Palestine to welcome the Jews as brethren and cooperate with them for the common welfare.^[8] Following the publication of the Declaration the British had dispatched Commander David George Hogarth to see Hussein in January 1918 bearing the message that the "political and economic freedom" of the Palestinian population was not in question.^[7] Hogarth reported that Hussein "would accept an independent Jewish State in Palestine, nor was I instructed to inform him that such a state was contemplated by Great Britain".^[9] Continuing Arab disquiet over Allied intentions also led during 1918 to the British Declaration to the Seven and the Anglo-French Declaration, the latter promising "the complete and final liberation of the peoples who have for so long been oppressed by the Turks, and the setting up of national governments and administrations deriving their authority from the free exercise of the initiative and choice of the indigenous populations."^[7][10]

Lord Grey had been the foreign secretary during the McMahon-Hussein negotiations. Speaking in the House of Lords on 27 March 1923, he made it clear that he entertained serious doubts as to the validity of the British government's interpretation of the pledges which he, as foreign secretary, had caused to be given to Hussein in 1915. He called for all of the secret engagements regarding Palestine to be made public.^[10] Many of the relevant documents in the National Archives were later declassified and published. Among them were the minutes of a Cabinet Eastern Committee meeting, chaired by Lord Curzon,which was held on 5 December 1918. Balfour was in attendance. The minutes revealed that in laying out the government's position Curzon had explained that: "Palestine was included in the areas as to which Great Britain pledged itself that they should be Arab and independent in the future".^[11]

The agreement

Main points of the agreement:

• The agreement committed both parties to conducting all relations between the groups by the most cordial goodwill and understanding, to work together to encourage immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale while protecting the rights of the Arab peasants and tenant farmers, and to safeguard the free practice of religious observances. The Muslim Holy Places were to be under Muslim control.
• The Zionist movement undertook to assist the Arab residents of Palestine and the future Arab state to develop their natural resources and establish a growing economy.
• The boundaries between an Arab State and Palestine should be determined by a Commission after the Paris Peace Conference.
• The parties committed to carrying into effect the Balfour Declaration of 1917, calling for a Jewish national home in all of Palestine.
• Disputes were to be submitted to the British Government for arbitration.

Weizmann signed the agreement on behalf of the Zionist Organization, while Faisal signed on behalf of the short-lived Arab Kingdom of Hedjaz.

Two weeks prior to signing the agreement, Faisal stated:

The two main branches of the Semitic family, Arabs and Jews, understand one another, and I hope that as a result of interchange of ideas at the Peace Conference, which will be guided by ideals of self-determination and nationality, each nation will make definite progress towards the realization of its aspirations. Arabs are not jealous of Zionist Jews, and intend to give them fair play and the Zionist Jews have assured the Nationalist Arabs of their intention to see that they too have fair play in their respective areas. Turkish intrigue in Palestine has raised jealousy between the Jewish colonists and the local peasants, but the mutual understanding of the aims of Arabs and Jews will at once clear away the last trace of this former bitterness, which, indeed, had already practically disappeared before the war by the work of the Arab Secret Revolutionary Committee, which in Syria and elsewhere laid the foundation of the Arab military successes of the past two years.^[12]

The areas discussed were detailed in a letter to Felix Frankfurter, President of the Zionist Organisation of America, on 3 March 1919, when Faisal wrote :

"The Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organization to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper."^[13]

The proposals submitted by the Zionist Organization to the Peace Conference were:

"The boundaries of Palestine shall follow the general lines set out below: Starting on the North at a point on the Mediterranean Sea in the vicinity South of Sidon and following the watersheds of the foothills of the Lebanon as far as Jisr el Karaon, thence to El Bire following the dividing line between the two basins of the Wadi El Korn and the Wadi Et Teim thence in a southerly direction following the dividing line between the Eastern and Western slopes of the Hermon, to the vicinity West of Beit Jenn, thence Eastward following the northern watersheds of the Nahr Mughaniye close to and west of the Hedjaz Railway. In the East a line close to and West of the Hedjaz Railway terminating in the Gulf of Akaba. In the South a frontier to be agreed upon with the Egyptian Government. In the West the Mediterranean Sea.

The details of the delimitations, or any necessary adjustments of detail, shall be settled by a Special Commission on which there shall be Jewish representation."^[14][15]

Text of the Agreement

Agreement Between Emir Feisal and Dr. Weizmann^[16]

3 January 1919

His Royal Highness the Emir Feisal, representing and acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of Hedjaz, and Dr. Chaim Weizmann, representing and acting on behalf of the Zionist Organization, mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people, and realizing that the surest means of working out the consummation of their natural aspirations is through the closest possible collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine, and being desirous further of confirming the good understanding which exists between them, have agreed upon the following:

Articles:

• Article I

The Arab State and Palestine in all their relations and undertakings shall be controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding, and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in the respective territories.

• Article II

Immediately following the completion of the deliberations of the Peace Conference, the definite boundaries between the Arab State and Palestine shall be determined by a Commission to be agreed upon by the parties hereto.

• Article III

In the establishment of the Constitution and Administration of Palestine, all such measures shall be adopted as will afford the fullest guarantees for carrying into effect the British Government's Declaration of the 2nd of November, 1917.

• Article IV

All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures the Arab peasant and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development.

• Article V

No regulation or law shall be made prohibiting or interfering in any way with the free exercise of religion; and further, the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall ever be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

• Article VI

The Mohammedan Holy Places shall be under Mohammedan control.

• Article VII

The Zionist Organization proposes to send to Palestine a Commission of experts to make a survey of the economic possibilities of the country, and to report upon the best means for its development. The Zionist Organization will place the aforementioned Commission at the disposal of the Arab State for the purpose of a survey of the economic possibilities of the Arab State and to report upon the best means for its development. The Zionist Organization will use its best efforts to assist the Arab State in providing the means for developing the natural resources and economic possibilities thereof.

• Article VIII

The parties hereto agree to act in complete accord and harmony on all matters embraced herein before the Peace Congress.

• Article IX

Any matters of dispute which may arise between the contracting parties hall be referred to the British Government for arbitration.

Given under our hand at London, England, the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen

Chaim Weizmann Feisal Ibn-Hussein

Reservation by the Emir Feisal

If the Arabs are established as I have asked in my manifesto of 4 January, addressed to the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, I will carry out what is written in this agreement. If changes are made, I cannot be answerable for failing to carry out this agreement.

Implementation

Faisal conditioned his acceptance on the fulfillment of British wartime promises to the Arabs, who had hoped for independence in a vast part of the Ottoman Empire. He appended to the typed document a hand-written statement:

"Provided the Arabs obtain their independence as demanded in my [forthcoming] Memorandum dated the 4th of January, 1919, to the Foreign Office of the Government of Great Britain, I shall concur in the above articles. But if the slightest modification or departure were to be made [regarding our demands], I shall not be then bound by a single word of the present Agreement which shall be deemed void and of no account or validity, and I shall not be answerable in any way whatsoever."

The Arabs did obtain their independence and the Faisal-Weizmann agreement survived only more than a few months. The decision of the peace conference itself refused independence for the vast Arab-inhabited lands that Faisal desired, mainly because the British and French had struck their own secret Sykes–Picot Agreement of 1916 dividing the Middle East between their own spheres of influence. With the conference deciding on the mandate system for all areas of the former Ottoman Empire, prior to statements from either the Zionist or Arab sides, Faisal soon began to express doubts about cooperation with the Zionist movement. After Faisal was expelled from Syria and given the Kingdom of Iraq, he contended that the conditions he appended were not fulfilled and the treaty therefore moot. St. John Philby, a British representative in Palestine, later stated that Hussein bin Ali, the Sharif of Mecca and King of Hejaz, on whose behalf Faisal was acting, had refused to recognize the agreement as soon as it was brought to his notice.^[17] However, Sharif Hussein formally endorsed the Balfour Declaration in the Treaty of Sèvres of 10 August 1920, along with the other Allied Powers, as King of Hedjaz.

The United Nations Special Committee On Palestine did not regard the agreement as ever being valid,^[18] while Weizmann continued to maintain that the treaty was still binding. In 1947 Weizmann explained :

"A postscript was also included in this treaty. This postscript relates to a reservation by King Feisal that he would carry out all the promises in this treaty if and when he would obtain his demands, namely, independence for the Arab countries. I submit that these requirements of King Feisal have at present been realized. The Arab countries are all independent, and therefore the condition on which depended the fulfillment of this treaty, has come into effect. Therefore, this treaty, to all intents and purposes, should today be a valid document".^[19]

According to C.D. Smith, the Syrian National Congress had forced Faisal to back away from his tentative support of Zionist goals.^[20] According to contemporaries, including Gertrude Bell and T. E. Lawrence, the French, with British support, betrayed Faisal and the Arab cause rendering the treaty invalid. Georgina Howell, 2006, Gertrude Bell: Queen of the Desert, Shaper of Nations.

Faisal-Frankfurter Correspondence At the Paris Peace Conference, 1919

Sat, Nov 27, 2010 | Edited by Crethi Plethi

Emir Faisal Ibn Hussein, son of Sharif Husayn of Mecca, leader of the Arab revolt against the Ottoman rule in the Middle East

Faisal-Frankfurter Correspondence At the Paris Peace Conference, 1919

Following World War I, the Emir Faisal Bin Hussein [son of Husayn, Sharif of Mecca] signed an agreement as part of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference with Dr. Chaim Weizmann in support of a Jewish homeland in Palestine and an Arab nation in a large part of the Middle East.

Following this [Faisal-Weizmann] Agreement, Emir Faisal exchanged letters with Judge Felix Frankfurter [who served as a Zionist delegate of the American delegation to the Paris Peace Conference].

In these letters Faisal expresses his support for the Jewish nationalist movement and the Jewish claims for a homeland in Palestine.

Letter from His Royal Highness Emir Faisal Ibn Hussein, Son of Husayn Ibn Ali, Sharif of Mecca, to Judge Felix Frankfurter, associate of Dr. Chaim Weizmann:

DELEGATION HEDJAZIENNE
Paris Peace Conference
March 3, 1919

Dear Mr. Frankfurter,

I want to take this opportunity of my first contact with American Zionists to tell you what I have often been able to say to Dr. Weizmann in Arabia and Europe.

We feel that the Arabs and Jews are cousins in having suffered similar oppressions at the hands of powers stronger than themselves, and by a happy coincidence have been able to take the first step towards the attainment of their national ideals together.

The Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organisation to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper. We will do our best, in so far as we are concerned, to help them through: we will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home.

With the chiefs of your movement, especially with Dr. Weizmann, we have had and continue to have the closest relations. He has been a great helper of our cause, and I hope the Arabs may soon be in a position to make the Jews some return for their kindness. We are working together for a reformed and revived Near East, and our two movements complete one another. The Jewish movement is national and not imperialist. Our movement is national and not imperialist, and there is room in Syria for us both. Indeed I think that neither can be a real success without the other.

People less informed and less responsible than our leaders and yours, ignoring the need for co-operation of the Arabs and Zionists have been trying to exploit the local difficulties that must necessarily arise in Palestine in the early stages of our movements. Some of them have, I am afraid, misrepresented your aims to the Arab peasantry, and our aims to the Jewish peasantry, with the result that interested parties have been able to make capital out of what they call our differences.

I wish to give you my firm conviction that these differences are not on questions of principle, but on matters of detail such as must inevitably occur in every contact of neighbouring peoples, and as are easily adjusted by mutual good will. Indeed nearly all of them will disappear with fuller knowledge.

I look forward, and my people with me look forward, to a future in which we will help you and you will help us, so that the countries in which we are mutually interested may once again take their places in the community of civilised peoples of the world.

Believe me,

Yours sincerely,

(Sgd.) Faisal

Judge Felix Frankfurter

Letter of reply from Judge Felix Frankfurter to Emir Faisal Ibn Hussein:

Paris Peace Conference

March 5, 1919

Royal Highness,

Allow me, on behalf of the Zionist Organisation, to acknowledge your recent letter with deep appreciation.

Those of us who come from the United States have already been gratified by the friendly relations and the active cooperation maintained between you and the Zionist leaders, particularly Dr. Weizmann. We knew it could not be otherwise; we knew that the aspirations of the Arab and the Jewish peoples were parallel, that each aspired to re-establish its nationality in its own homeland, each making its own distinctive contribution to civilisation, each seeking its own peaceful mode of life.

The Zionist leaders and the Jewish people for whom they speak have watched with satisfaction the spiritual vigour of the Arab movement. Themselves seeking justice, they are anxious that the just national aims of the Arab people be confirmed and safeguarded by the Peace Conference.

We knew from your acts and your past utterances that the Zionist movement — in other words the national aim of the Jewish people — had your support and the support of the Arab people for whom you speak. These aims are now before the Peace Conference as definite proposals by the Zionist Organisation. We are happy indeed that you consider these proposals “moderate and proper,” and that we have in you a staunch supporter for their realization.

For both the Arab and the Jewish peoples there are difficulties ahead — difficulties that challenge the united statesmanship of Arab and Jewish leaders. For it is no easy task to rebuild two great civilizations that have been suffering oppression and misrule for centuries. We each have our difficulties we shall work out as friends, friends who are animated by similar purposes, seeking a free and full development for the two neighboring peoples. The Arabs and Jews are neighbors in territory; we cannot but live side by side as friends.

Very respectfully,

(Sgd.) Felix Frankfurter

---

Posted in: Historical Documents • The Middle East • Zionism  Tagged with: 1919 • Arabism • arabs• Britain • Dr. Chaim Weizmann • Emir Faisal Bin Hussein • Faisal-Frankfurter Correspondence •Felix Frankfurter • Husayn Ibn Ali • Jewish homeland • jews • palestine • Paris Peace Conference •Sharif of Mecca • United States • zionism • Zionist movement 

Related posts:

My Life’s Work: U.S. Foreign Policy Analysis

Justifying Islamic terrorism and the murder of Lee Rigby: Asghar Bukhari and MPAC UK

Obama’s Middle East Speech: The Opposite of Strategy Is Catastrophe

After the Fall: What Do You Do When You Conclude America is (Temporarily or Permanently) Kaput?

State of the Union Address on Foreign Policy: Careful Phrasing Conceals Disasters

1. Crethi Plethi says:

   27 November 2010 at 15:44

   Faisal-Frankfurter Correspondence At The Paris Peace Conference 1919 | #Israel #Arabs #Palestine #Zionism http://j.mp/hZF1HK

Arab–Israeli peace diplomacy and treaties

• Paris Peace Conference, 1919
• 1949 Armistice Agreements
• Camp David Accords (1978)
• Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty (1979)
• Madrid Conference of 1991
• Oslo Accords (1993)
• Israel–Jordan peace treaty (1994)
• Camp David 2000 Summit
• Peace process in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict
• Projects working for peace among Israelis and Arabs
• List of Middle East peace proposals
• International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict

Footnotes

British Mandate for Palestine

The three principles of the British Balfour Declaration regarding Palestine were adopted in the Treaty of Sèvres:

ARTICLE 95.

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, 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.

Palestine officially fell under the British Mandate.