Abbas’s UN Bid Carries Implications for Peace, U.S. Military
Giving ‘Palestine’ the UN recognition it needs to revive its ICC case against Israel over the Gaza war could pave the way for similar cases against America
By Evelyn Gordon, JINSA Fellow
Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas plans to seek UN recognition as a nonmember observer state this fall. His formal request to the UN General Assembly probably won’t be submitted until after the U.S. elections. But given how many parties may need to be lobbied, Washington should start working to thwart his move soon – not only because such recognition would destroy any remaining prospects of Israeli-Palestinian peace, but also because it substantially increases the risk that American military personnel could someday be indicted in the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The consequences for peace talks are obvious. If the General Assembly accedes to Abbas’s request to recognize “Palestine” in the 1967 lines, no Palestinian leader will be able to accept less. Yet no Israeli leader could agree to this. Aside from Israel’s longstanding security objections to the “Auschwitz lines,” hundreds of thousands of Israelis live in East Jerusalem and the major settlement blocs; evicting that many citizens from their homes would be politically impossible.
Even if one assumes the 1967 lines would merely be the starting point for negotiations, UN recognition would hinder the talks. Contrary to the widespread view that borders are an easily resolved issue, negotiations have consistently foundered over them. Even Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who offered Abbas the equivalent of the 1967 lines in 2008, sought land swaps for about seven percent of the West Bank to avoid evicting hundreds of thousands of Israelis. Yet Abbas has consistently offered only about two percent. And he’s unlikely to be more forthcoming once the UN has endorsed his position.
Moreover, such recognition would reduce Palestinian willingness to agree to necessary concessions on other issues, like security and refugees, since Israel’s main bargaining chip is the territory it controls. Thus once the UN has already awarded the Palestinians 100 percent of this territory, what could Israel offer in exchange for concessions on other issues?
But while the threat UN recognition poses to peace talks is clear, the threat to American military personnel may seem less obvious. Though Abbas openly admits to wanting UN recognition primarily so he can file charges against Israel in the ICC, media reports often imply that Israel’s main concern is an indictment over the settlements – an issue irrelevant to the U.S. military.
Yet the one issue over which Abbas has actually sought to indict Israel isn’t the settlements, but its war with Hamas in Gaza in January 2009. The ICC rejected that request, but only because the PA wasn’t a state, and therefore lacked standing to join the court: It explicitly said it could reconsider should the General Assembly recognize “Palestine” as a nonmember state.
The PA’s case rests on the infamous Goldstone Report, which accused Israel of war crimes in Gaza and recommended that these findings be submitted to the ICC prosecutor for consideration. Both the UN Human Rights Council and the General Assembly overwhelmingly endorsed the report (though even its author has since disavowed it).
But there’s virtually nothing Israel did in Gaza that the United States and some of its European allies haven’t done in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. For instance, the Goldstone Report assailed Israel for having caused civilian casualties, ignoring the difficulties of avoiding such casualties when fighting terrorists who wear no uniforms and deliberately launch attacks from civilian population centers. Thousands of civilians have been killed under similar circumstances in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thus if Israel could be indicted for this, so could America.
Or take the houses Israel destroyed due to fear they were booby-trapped: The United States has demolished hundreds of houses in Afghanistan for the same reason.
But an ICC indictment against Israel over Gaza isn’t just a precedent that could be used against America. Rather, it’s an essential precondition for indicting America.
Like all new institutions, the ICC must expand its reach cautiously to avoid a backlash. And smart institutions accomplish this by beginning with “easy” targets, then using the precedents set in those cases to tackle harder ones.
Israel is unquestionably the West’s easiest target: Far from provoking an international backlash, indicting it would win the ICC global applause – including in Europe, where only eight countries voted against the Goldstone Report. But once the court indicts Israel over Gaza, it will have no grounds for refusing to indict the United States or one of its allies for identical actions in Iraq or Afghanistan, or any other country where, say, U.S. drone strikes have killed civilians (such as Pakistan). After all, Israel tries just as hard as they do to avoid civilian casualties, as attested by no less a personage than the former commander of British forces in Afghanistan.
Thus all it would take would be for one such country to join the court (if it hasn’t already) and file a complaint. An indictment would then require all 121 existing member states – including many American allies – to arrest any defendants that enter their territory.
Clearly, this doesn’t mean every private in the field would be at risk; war crimes charges generally target the senior officers and government officials who devise the allegedly “illegal” tactics and issue the orders, rather than the lower-ranking soldiers who carry them out. That is how the ICC has acted to date, and it’s equally true of cases Palestinians have hitherto pursued in European countries with universal jurisdiction laws. When a Spanish judge agreed to investigate the 2002 airstrike in Gaza that killed leading Hamas terrorist Salah Shehadeh, for instance, the Israelis named as suspects included the defense minister, the Israel Defense Forces chief of staff, the air force commander, and the Shin Bet security service chief. Israelis who have canceled visits to Britain because of arrest warrants sought by Palestinian groups include a former foreign minister, the IDF chief of staff, the commander of the IDF’s Southern Command, and the Shin Bet security service chief.
Giving the PA the status necessary to seek an ICC indictment of senior Israeli officers over Gaza thus greatly increases the risk that American officers, too, could someday find themselves in the ICC’s dock. Therefore, Washington has a vested interest in preventing it.
Fortunately, it also has the leverage to do so. It could threaten Abbas with an aid cutoff if he goes through with his bid, and lobby other PA donors to follow suit. Even more important, it could warn both the UN and member states that should the UNGA approve Abbas’s request, it will forfeit Washington’s 22 percent share of its budget.
Just how effective this latter threat can be is evident from the aftermath of UNESCO’s admission of “Palestine” last year. Initially, Abbas planned to follow up by applying to join other UN agencies. But after Washington cancelLed its 22 percent contribution to UNESCO’s budget, both UN officials and other countries pressured him to drop the idea, because they didn’t want other agencies’ budgets similarly gutted. And he did.
In short, America both can and should thwart the PA’s UN bid – not only because of its stated commitment to Israeli-Palestinian peace, but for the sake of its own men and women in uniform.
Evelyn Gordon, JINSA Fellow, is a journalist and commentator writing in The Jerusalem Post and Commentary. For more information on the JINSA Fellowship program, click here.
@ yamit82:
Yes, quite so.
As I mentioned to Bernard above [#30], the area assigned the 2-1/2 tribes in Num 34 included only Gilad & Bashan [today, the Golan] — the regions just north of Ammon, Moab & Edom (the Mr Seir area).
Quite possibly so.
Yes; this (among several other such “wrinkles”) is why my tag line [at the end of #33] to Salomon suggested that whatever it is that is “intended” should perhaps (for the time being) be left an open question.
@ dweller: thanks for the info
@ Salomon Benzimra:OK, thanks for the info
@ Salomon Benzimra:
@ dweller:
G-d was also very specific about what land He was not giving to Israel – Ammon, Moab, & Mt. Seir. This land was south of the Jabbok River and east of the Jordan River and the Arabah valley. Today this area is within the country of Jordan. Ammon was the land of the descendants of Lot’s son, Ben-ammi. This name continues today as Amman, the capital city of Jordan. Moab was the land of the descendants of Lot’s son, Moab. Mt. Seir was in the land of Edom, the area given to the descendants of Esau.
Dt 2:5,9,19
5 don’t contend with them; for I will not give you of their land, no, not so much as for the sole of the foot to tread on; because I have given Mount Seir to Esau for a possession.
9 HaShem said to me, Don’t bother Moab, neither contend with them in battle; for I will not give you of his land for a possession; because I have given Ar to the children of Lot for a possession.
19 and when you come near over against the children of Ammon, don’t bother them, nor contend with them; for I will not give you of the land of the children of Ammon for a possession; because I have given it to the children of Lot for a possession.
Jsh 24:4
I gave to Isaac Jacob and Esau: and I gave to Esau Mount Seir, to possess it: and Jacob and his children went down into Egypt.
2Ch 20:10
Now, behold, the children of Ammon and Moab and Mount Seir, whom you would not let Israel invade, when they came out of the land of Egypt, but they turned aside from them, and didn’t destroy them;
I guess it was recognition of Lot’s loyalty to Abraham and Esau was given his portion of his inheritance. These lands were later conquered and incorporated into the Kingdoms of David and Solomon and the populations either destroyed or assimilated which was allowed after 3 generations along with the Egyptians.
G-d’s promise included the enlargement and expansion of the original border descriptions. Ex 34:24
For I will drive out nations before you and enlarge your borders; neither shall any man desire your land when you go up to appear before HaShem, your G-d, three times in the year.
Deut 19:8
If HaShem your G-d enlarge your border, as he has sworn to your fathers, and give you all the land which he promised to give to your fathers;
details about the outer borders of Israel that aren’t seen in the other verses “the land that still remains” Jsh 13:1-6
1. Now Joshua was old and well advanced in years. HaShem said to him, “You are old and advanced in years, and there remains yet very much land to be possessed.
2. “This is the land that still remains: all the regions of the Philistines, and all the Geshurites;
3. from the Shihor, which is before Egypt, even to the border of Ekron northward, which is counted as Canaanite; the five lords of the Philistines; the Gazites, and the Ashdodites, the Ashkelonites, the Gittites, and the Ekronites; also the Avvim,
4. on the south; all the land of the Canaanites, and Mearah that belongs to the Sidonians, to Aphek, to the border of the Amorites;
5. and the land of the Gebalites, and all Lebanon, toward the sunrise, from Baal Gad under Mount Hermon to the entrance of Hamath;
6. all the inhabitants of the hill country from Lebanon to Misrephoth Maim, even all the Sidonians; them will I drive out from before the children of Israel: only allocate it to Israel for an inheritance, as I have commanded you.
Is 26:15
You have increased the nation, O G-d. You have increased the nation! You are glorified! You have enlarged all the borders of the land.
Micah 5:6
They will rule the land of Assyria with the sword,
and the land of Nimrod in its gates.
He will deliver us from the Assyrian,
when he invades our land,
and when he marches within our border.
Most modern scholars I believe attribute the Southern Border to Wadi El Arish but Rahi and the Malbin baed on Book of Ezekiel, chapters 47-48 say definitely it’s the Nile. Either way all of the Northern Sinai including all of Gaza as part of the Lands promised the Jews. They maintain that it was an error in Targum Johnathan.
@ Salomon Benzimra:
See what happens when a writer has to do his own editing? Vey iz mir!
Yes, perhaps so. It would be some few centuries before the tribes would abate their mutual squabbling & join in a political union to deal as a nation with the Philistines. In the meantime, there would no doubt have been an inclination to go their own ways & occasionally shirk the broader responsibilities that a nation finds necessary.
Thought about that from time to time. And that may indeed be the meaning of it.
Then too, however, there is also this [De 11:24]:
That’s a whole lot later than “Abram.”
And under Solomon, the kingdom did in fact stretch to the Euphrates.
Best, perhaps, to leave it an open question.
@ Salomon Benzimra:
As I recall, he seems to believe the borders had actually ALSO included the eastern third (half?) of the Sinai Peninsula as well, does he not?
@ dweller:
Dweller, your point is well taken and this passage in Numbers 34 always puzzled me. When God finished delineating the Land of Israel on its four boundaries, He concludes by saying: “These will be the four borders of your land.”
In the next passage, Moses “rectifies” the drawing by reminding us of the 2 1/2 remaining Tribes which were located beyond the Jordan River. I always thought of that passage as a declaration of unity to spur the 2 1/2 Tribes (who were already safely established in Transjordan) to join the other Israelites and conquer Canaaan under the command of Joshua.
As for Genesis 15:18, the Nile-to-Euphrates covenant was made with Abram (before he became “Abraham”) and was promised to his descendants. Actually, this is what happened with his descendants Ishmael and Isaac. So, in my view, the Nile-to-Euphrates promise was not exclusive to the Jews and has already been fulfilled.
@ Bernard Ross:
The Declaration of 11-2-17 makes no specific reference.
However, the memoranda betw Lloyd-George & Balfour (esp those of Lloyd-George) make regular use of the key phrase “from Dan to Be’ersheva”
— a “term of art,” as it were (common throughout the scripture), when it comes to designating the Land as settled by the Tribes, and as set forth in the instructions in Numbers 34. Therefore it includes Gilad & Bashan, etc, east of the River, as assigned the 2-1/2 tribes.
@ Salomon Benzimra:
Actually, Salomon, it’s fair to note that the instructions in Numbers 34 do, in fact, provide for that as well:
And it would appear that the promise of the Nile-to-Euphrates does indeed pertain to the Jews [Gen 15:18]:
However, if it IS so intended, that is clearly for a time beyond our present comprehension — the Jewish people is eternal. . . .
In any case, as you have noted, such a formulation was not included in the basis of the Mandate specifically, and that is the matter under discussion.
@ Bernard Ross:
Bernard, the Balfour declaration is just ONE long sentence with two propositions in it: the first mentions a Jewish National Home in Palestine; the second refers to the rights of the non-Jews in Palestine and of the Jews abroad.
That’s it: no specifics on boundaries at all. From the Paris Peace Conference onwards, the common understanding was that the Jewish National Home in Palestine would extend “from Dan to Beersheba.” Then came the Franco-British Boundary Convention in December 1920 which cut off some territory in the north and then the Churchill White Paper and the Mandate in June-July 1922 which reduced the territory to the east.
From San Remo to the Mandate (over a two year period) there was, unfortunately, ample time for the British to distort the spirit and the letter of the “reconstituted” Jewish National Home.
yamit82 Said:
I do believe that this fact should be considered when trying to determine what is realistic and what is not, and what is achievable regarding transfer.
Salomon Benzimra Said:
What reference was used in the Balfour declaration to territory? My understanding is that the subsequent treaties,etc. were using Balfour as the basis to arrive at the boundaries.
dweller is absolutely right about the fallacy of the Nile-to-Euphrates territorial extent.
In fact, God instructed Moses on the precise boundaries of the Land of Israel in Numbers, Chap.34. He did not even include any part of Transjordan. The core of the Jewish claims to the land rests on the “historical connection.” The “corridor” of Transjordan was claimed by Weizmann at the Paris Peace Conference, on the grounds that it was settled by 2 1/2 Tribes (Ruben, Gad and 1.2 of Menashe) at the time of Joshua.
@ dweller:
I know what he asked and even if it was less I don’t care at this point, I have mostly stayed out of this stupid argument because aside from an intellectual exercise I find it totally irrelevant today. We are not going to turn the clock backwards over this or any other betrayal of the Jews historically by the gentiles and our own Jewish traitors. I only provided the link to show how naive and stupid were the Jews to believe the British and the promise of any gentile to Jews when Jewish interests are concerned.
So? Most Jews a hundred years ago did not believe the Jews would ever regain their homeland , even a small part of it and none believed a majority a Jews would soon be living in that homeland. I would never start a war to regain the greater Israel but if in defense I take some of it back, I would never give it up even under threat of force and war.
@ yamit82:
No.
The Most High promised the Land from Nile to Euphrates to the Jews, yes.
The numbers of JEWS who actually go so far as to lay claim to such boundaries for themselves these days
— meet in a phone booth once a year at Simchat Torah.
I believe that Bernard is asking you, Yamit, your opinion of the specific proposition that it wasn’t ‘all’ of [what constitutes] present-day Jordan [i.e., all 350 km E of the River]that was promised to the Jews in the Mandate
— but rather, only Jordan to the Hijaz Railway [30-50 km E of the River]
as indicated in Salomon’s post #5, above
— and that therefore it wasn’t actually “3/4” of the land that was in fact stolen — since the balance of present-day Jordan [Eastern Palestine] was added-on AFTERWARD — in 1925, as a sop to the Saudis who had just consolidated their usurpation of (& merger with) the Hijaz & wanted a buffer betw themselves & French-administered, Mandate Syria.
@ Bernard Ross:
This is what I do know: Jews claim the Promised Land from the Nile to Euphrates. The League of Nations allocated us a modest strip of that land, which included Transjordan. The British stole ¾ of that land to make a kingdom of Jordan for a few Bedouin. Jews swallowed the bitter pill and accepted the partition. But then, acting as if no Arab state had been carved out of the Jewish homeland, the UN carved a Palestinian state from what remained of Israel. After the Jews agreed to that too, the world now demands that Jews effectively give away the rest of our country by first making Israel dependent and bit by bit, militarily vulnerable by massively supporting, arming and training our enemies.
@ Bernard Ross:
Conclusion of the above.
When Churchill, at a 1921 conference at Cairo’s Mena House, effectively handed over transJordan to Abdullah, T.E. Lawrence [“of Arabia”], who worked closely with Churchill on this, made a notation to himself — it shows up in his The Seven Pillars of Wisdom — that “England is out of the Arab affair with clean hands.”
Clean indeed. ‘Out’ indeed.
The American agronomist, Dr Walter Clay Lowdermilk [author of Palestine, Land of Promise (Harper & Bros., NY, 1944)], who had studied the land & its water systems on both banks of the River Jordan, had characterized the thinly-settled population of TransJordan as “semi-starving” & “living in abject poverty,” despite the richness of the soil. [Shmuel Katz, Lone Wolf: a Biography of Vladimir (Ze’ev) Jabotinsky, Vol. 2 (Barricade Books, NY, 1996), p. 1322]
However, when a cash-poor & administratively clumsy (as yet, unpracticed & inexperienced) Abdullah proposed to lease to the Zionists TransJordanian land for Jewish settlement — and in fact an agreement to that effect: a 99-year lease-option at an annual rental of £P 2000, was signed [3 Jan 33] and an initial payment of £P 500 actually changed hands — the Brits intervened & actually scotched the deal [to coin a phrase], by pressuring Abdullah & his Parliament to pass legislation that would “close the loophole” [of no longer “encouraging,” per the Mandate, but still permitting, Jewish settlement] and finally insure that TransJordan would continue to remain a country without Jews.
This, despite the fact that Abdullah’s Parliament [the Trans-Jordanian Assembly] had, by an overwhelming majority [13-3] approved a resolution at its 30 March 1933 session to repeal the old Ottoman law that had until then prohibited sale of land to ‘foreigners’. Even leasing the land to the Jews was unacceptable to the Colonial Office bureaucrats. And just “in case their power of persuasion proved inadequate,” notes Katz,
“…they flashed the trump that settled the issue. Sir Percy Cox [the British Resident — i.e., chief representative — in Amman] told Abdullah that the high commissioner could not prevent his leasing land, but His Majesty’s Government could withdraw the subsidy on which Abdullah’s ramshackle administration was dependent.
“Such a decision by the Transjordanian Parliament would still be a contradiction of the Mandate — but then the quarrel would be between the Zionists and the Arabs. Over this the Colonial Office would lose no sleep.” [Katz, Lone Wolf, p. 1326]
Indeed, England’s hands were anything but ‘clean’, and it was the Jewish People — not England (or indeed Araby) — that was out: out of the transJordanian province of the League-acknowledged Jewish patrimony. Thus,
“…as a purely British manufacture, filched from the Jewish National Home, torn out of Palestine of which it had always been an integral part, there was brought into being from the empty waste what subsequently became a spearhead in the ‘Arab’ onslaught on the Jewish state, the Emirate of Transjordan, later expanded across the river and renamed the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.” [Katz, Battleground, pp. 57-59]
Meanwhile, however, although Jews were to be no longer ‘encouraged’ to settle in transJordanian Palestine, no corresponding restriction was simultaneously placed on (or contemplated for) Arab immigration into Western (i.e., cisJordanian) Palestine — as if it had been assumed that the natural direction of Arab settlement would be away from, not toward, Jews. In effect, the Mandate’s purpose: of creating a Jewish majority, in preparation for independent Jewish statehood (without compromising the property rights, civil protections or peaceable religious exercise of existing non-Jewish communities) — was subverted, and its policy, operatively stood upon its head.
@ Bernard Ross:
Your leariness particularly as to Wiki is soundly warranted, Bernard. Whenever I’ve got searches to do (and time in which to do it), I avoid going to Wiki as a first option. I know it’s always tempting to go there first, because it’s typically right at the top of the damned list. But it often contains erroneous or unverified (or unverifiable) data mixed in with the legitimate stuff.
Tracking down Wiki references & allusions (when possible at all) can turn out to be more exhausting & time consuming than one had expected. But it’s got to be done where Wiki is concerned, because you just cannot trust it; too many people with axes to grind contribute to it. I may click on Wiki eventually, but only AFTER I’ve made a number of other attempts elsewhere.
The following narrative may not address to your satisfaction the specific issue of the original intended boundaries, but it may shore up some related matters as to suspicions of the early Brit attempts to jew-down the Jews in re Balfour.
As early as 11 Aug 1920: the day after the signing of the Treaty of Sevres (which incorporated the Balfour Declaration, and was intended to dispose of the Ottoman territories)
— indeed, scarcely 3 wks after Faisal’s ouster from Syria, just 5 wks from the July 1 inauguration of the civil administration of the Palestine Mandate, and actually over 2-&-a-half mos BEFORE the outset of Abdullah’s crazy quest to throw out the French who’d ousted Faisal (the adventure purportedly prompting Churchill to give Abdullah transJordan),
Lord Curzon, the hardline colonialist who had succeeded Balfour at the Foreign Office 10 mos earlier, wrote to Robert Vansittart [head of the political section of HMG’s Peace Delegation to the Versailles Conference]:
“His Majesty’s Government are already treating ‘TransJordania’ as separate from the Damascus State, while at the same time avoiding any definite connection between it and Palestine, thus leaving the way open for the establishment there, should it become advisable, of some form of independent Arab government, perhaps by arrangement with King Hussein [i.e., the Sharif, father to Abdullah — dw] or other Arab chiefs concerned.” [emphases mine — dw]
[Curzon to Robt Vansittart, 11 Aug 1920, Docs on Brit Foreign Policy (DBFP), 1919-39, 1st series, ed. E.L. Woodward & Rohan Butler (HMSO, London, 1960), Vol. 13, p. 351; cited in Ephraim Karsh, & Inari Karsh, Empires of the Sand: The Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East, 1789-1923 (Harvard U. Press, Cambridge, 1999), p. 317]
Will finish this in another post.
@ yamit82:thanks, that shows the Faisal Weitzman agreement map proposed to the conference.
what do you think of this links details about the adding of trans jordan to the mandate territory excluding its inclusion in the jewish homeland provisions. It appears to be supporting the idea that only the faisal witzman areas were the original balfour dec mandate boundaries and therefore a much smaller amount of land than the 77% was dispossessed from the jews at the severance of trans jordan(as it does not include most of the final trans jordan).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine
To dweller: Thank you for bringing up these most relevant facts and documents related to the Mandate and Transjordan.
To Bernard Ross: I am in no way as knowledgeable as Atorney Howard Grief who has spent over twenty years researching these issues. I overwhelmingly agree with all of Grief’s legal interpretations, except on the territorial extent of Transjordan that should be part of the Jewish National Home. As I am sure you will understand, my exchange with Grief (over 100 page transcript) was private and I cannot release it without his express consent. But as I said before, I summarized the essence of our divergence of opinion in my book.
@ Bernard Ross:
@ Bernard Ross:
Proposals Presented to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919
Statement of the Zionist Organization regarding Palestine. (with Maps)
Poor naive (stupid Jews)
Salomon Benzimra Said:
the wiki link I sent you does appear to confirm your view and makes interesting reading howver, as I wrote dweller, who added supporting information to your thesis
Bernard Ross Said:
….furtherSalomon Benzimra Said:
As you both are quite knowledgeable in this research the fact that there is disagreement on this point begs interpretation. I am interested to see the differences. In any case it appears that you both agree that Jews have the legal settlement rights west of the jordan river AND that jews were dispossessed and banned of a portion, if not all, of the subsequent creation of trans jordan. The disagreement, it appears, is as to how much.
@ dweller:Thanks for the information. I believe Mr. Benzimra was questioning my original statement regarding 77% of original mandate territory presumed to include all or most of the current trans jordan. He maintains. I believe, that the original contemplated territory would have been more in line with the FW agreement map and your information rather than a much wider east bank(77%). I sent him a link which appears to confirm his view however I have not researched it yet and am wary of revisionist tendencies and wiki. As the British appeared to immediately backtrack on the Balfour Declaration and try to subvert it, it is possible that explanations afterwards intentionally support an agenda justifying it. Furthermore, even in the wiki link there appeared to be a British subterfuge to conceal the giving to Abdullah under a guise of being part of the Homeland. Therefore, it can be lies to cover lies. I would be interested in the most common interpretation of the original Balfour Declaration description as subsequent treaties referred to and were based upon that intended area.
@ Bernard Ross:
Since the Hijaz Railway ran parallel to — and some 15 mi ea of — the Jordan R. (from Damascus in the North, through Amman, to about 100 mi south of Ma’an, on its way s. of Aqaba-Eilat, and on into the Arabian peninsula well toward Mecca), it is evident & clear, from their citing the Railway, that neither Balfour nor the sitting PM Lloyd-George, who APPOINTED Balfour, had any intention that the Jewish National Home be confined to territories strictly w. of the River.
BEYOND the Hijaz Railway, however, would’ve been hard to square. The Railway was itself entirely an Ottoman creation, and ultimately may have been the Sublime Porte’s only significant contribution to the region’s infrastructure during the full 4 centuries of Ottoman possession of the territory. The Railway’s function & purpose was not only to expedite trade between Turkey and her northern Syrian & southern Syrian possessions, but also to facilitate pilgrimages to the Muslim holy places on the w. side of the Arabian Peninsula while strengthening, in the process, the Ottoman hold on the Hijaz & its Sharifs.
Obviously with the demise of the Ottomans & dismantlement of its possessions, the matter of Turkish control of the Hijaz would’ve been moot, but the annual Muslim Hajj & other travel to Mecca for religious purposes — esp pilgrims coming from UK’s imperial crown jewel, India — would clearly have been problematic were the Railway & parts east to be placed in non-Muslim hands.
@ Bernard Ross:
This is correct.
As the 9 Sept 1919 lead in The Times (London) observed, in urging that the planned Jewish commonwealth have a “good military frontier…as near as may be to the edge of the desert” — which desert is territorially separated from the East Bank of the the River Jordan by a north-south mountain ridge about 20 km due east of the River:
— that River “will not do as Palestine’s eastern boundary. Our duty as Mandatory is to make Jewish Palestine not a struggling State but one that is capable of a vigorous and independent national life.”
[cited in Samuel Katz, Battleground, p. 55]
“It is not enough that the Jews should have access to Palestine,” Lord Balfour had written 4 wks earlier in an 11 Aug memo to PM David Lloyd-George, “but that their homeland be a viable one” — which is largely why Balfour had indicated the proper place to draw the frontier as substantially east of the Jordan River: to provide for the land’s defensibility, as well as for the development of its agricultural potential in the largely unsettled transJordanian plains: known to form the natural granary of the Palestinian land mass. The Jewish National Home, wrote Balfour, thus “should extend into the lands lying east of the Jordan.”
So Balfour, who led Britain’s delegation to the 1919 Paris (Versailles) Peace Conference, confirmed what he had carefully stated when he articulated suitable borders of Palestine some 6 wks earlier [26 June] in a yet another memo to the PM:
“In determining the Palestinian frontiers, the main thing to keep in mind is to make a Zionist policy possible by giving the fullest scope to economic development in Palestine.
“Thus, the Northern frontier should give to Palestine a full command of the water-power which geographically belongs to Palestine and not to Syria; while the Eastern frontier should be so drawn as to give the widest scope to agricultural development on the left bank of the Jordan [i.e., the east bank — as viewed from the European continent — dw], consistent with leaving the Hijaz Railway completely in Arab possession.” [emphasis mine — dw] [cited in Joan Peters, From Time Immemorial, p. 518, n. 2]
The distinguished UK scholar, Isaiah Friedman — who was the 1st researcher to study the official British records for the period of 1914-1922, when they were 1st opened to public inspection at the Public Record Office (Kew Gardens, London) in the late 1960’s — affirms, based on his findings, that at the Peace Conference, not only Balfour himself, but also, and more generally, “British statesmen, as well as military, practically to a man, [maintained] that the boundary of the Jewish National Home should extend east of the River Jordan up to the Hedjaz Railway.”
[Isaiah Friedman, “How Trans-Jordan was severed from the territory of the Jewish National Home,” Journal of Israeli History, Vol. 27, No. 1, Mar 08, p. 78 {pp. 65-85} [this article itself constituting an abbreviated version of a chapter from Prof Friedman’s forthcoming book, Miscalculations by the British and the Rise of Moslem Nationalism (Palestine: A Twice Promised Land? vol. 2)]
I’ll finish this in another post.
@ Bernard Ross:
well thought out, well written, but the gutless, balless ISRAEL leadership will act like the serpents theve become and slither away mumbling ‘gotta make painfull compromises’.
@ Bernard Ross:
Bernard, you show two interesting links:
1. The Wiki link shows a detailed description of all the main events related to the Mandate, and all their twists and turns with regard to the birth of Transjordan, later expanded to what is present-day Jordan.
2. The Map of the British Mandate: In my view, this map is incorrect in that it purports to show “the boundaries of the land in which the Jewish National Home was to be reconstituted” as per the “Mandate for Palestine, April 24, 1920.” First, that date refers to the San Remo Conference, where no territorial boundaries were ever discussed. Second, the territory of the Jewish National Home was never legally recognized as bordering western Iraq.
That map first appeared on page 8 of the “Routledge Atlas of the Israeli-Arab Conflict (9th edition)” by Sir Martin Gilbert. At the end of an exchange I had with Sir Martin in 2010, he agreed that the Jewish people were not dispossessed of the whole of Transjordan, and he intended to clarify the contents of that map in a future edition. Unfortunately, the original map was picked up by many authors and is now broadly circulated.
For the record, I must state that Attorney Howard Grief, whom I highly admire for his exhaustive work on the legal foundations of Israel, does not share my views on the issue of Transjordan. After a long correspondence spanning several months, we both agreed to disagree. I summarily explained our difference of opinion in my book, The Jewish People’s Rights to the Land of Israel
Salomon Benzimra Said:
I think that the last link I sent reflects what you were saying. Apparently, according to wiki, the oriiginal homeland was enlarged to include the area of transjordan in the mandate as a technicality to give that land to abdullah. Apparently at the same time as it was included it was also agreed that transjordan would not be subject to the provisions for a jewish homeland. This appears to be what you are saying and appears to infer that transjordan was never part of the jewish homeland but I am still not sure. Thank you for the info.
@ Salomon Benzimra:here is another link which may explain your statements. apparently the disposition of trans jordan and the mandate were in flux but what appears certain is that west of the Jordan river was the Jewish homeland. I have not finished looking into this but there may be questions regarding my statement of trans jordan coming out of the original mandate lands and banning Jewish settlement. I am not yet sure but it may be that trans jordan was first added to the mandate albeit with the purpose of it not becoming part of he jewish homeland. This appears to be a murky area. Still the 1917 maps appear to show transjordan as part of the biritish mandate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine
@ Bernard Ross:
The official maps you have seen of the British Mandate, which included the Jordanian “panhandle” could not have been produced before the Churchill White Paper of 1922, and they reflect the territorial remodelling that took place in 1925, after the British expanded their Mandate for Mesopotamia westwards.
Whereas the British Mandate for Palestine was synonymous with the Jewish National Home in 1920-21, the later so-called “British Mandate” was enlarged to 120,000 sqkm and the close connection to the Jewish National Home was lost. This was the beginning of the Brish treachery, which grew with their subsequent anti-Zionist policies, culminating in the infamous MacDonald White Paper of 1939.
Please note that neither the Balfour Declaration nor the San Remo Resolution refer to territory in any specific way. The Weizmann-Faisal map you refer to is the map proposed in 1919 by the Zionist Organization at the Paris Peace Conference. Its eastern boundaries were tacitly recognized by the Franco-British Boundary Convention of December, 1920, before the Churchill White Paper was issued and Article 25 was inserted in the Mandate for Palestine in 1922.
@ Salomon Benzimra:please see following maps
http://www.justicenow4israel.com/mandatemap.html
Salomon Benzimra Said:
All the maps I can find for 1917-1922 include transjordan(including the panhandle) in the original British Palestine mandate. The only map I have seen that sounds like what you are referring to is one called the Faisal Weitzmann agreement which I believe was a ZOA proposal but not forming any part of the legally binding agreements and declarations of Balfour Dec.,San Remo, or LofN mandate. I believe the FW agreement crossed the Jordan river and went to the hejaz railway. However it appears to me that the land severed to create Jordan was all part of the original British Mandate territory of the Balfour declaration to which subsequent documents refer. Please advise.
@ Bernard Ross:
Bernard Ross is right in his last comment, as to the anomaly of Jordan. The point I made in my previous post referred to Item #6 of Mr. Ross’s observations:
In my view, the Jewish National Home – as understood in 1920-1921 – included the Transjordan part along the Jordan River (over a territory 30-50 km wide), but never extended as far east as 350 km from the River, as the British extended the Transjordan territory in 1925 to accommodate Ibn Saud and prevent any border between French-controlled Syria and what later became Saudi Arabia.
@ Salomon Benzimra: Dear Mr. Benzimra, If Jordan formed 77% of the mandate territory then wouldn’t this be assumed legally to be residnce for former occupants of “Palestine”. As Jews were banned from settlement in trans jordan then who can it be assumed to be for under the trust declarations and prior treaties? What is the reason given for the banning of jewish settlement east of the jordan river? The hashemites could rule it with Jews. The only justification for the creation of a jew free jordan on the former palestine would be that arabs and jews are unable to live together therefore arabs to the east of the jordan and jews to the west of the river. I see no other interpretation which can justify the severance and the banning of jews and still be allowable under the relevant treaties, mandates and declarations. Unless one confers legality on the violations of trusteeship.
Beyond the very valid points raised by Evelyn Gordon, and the equally pertinent observations of Bernard Ross (except his point #6), it seems that such a decision by the UN should immediately disqualify the UN from the Quartet and from any role in the so-called “peace process.” The same disqualification would apply to the EU and Russia should they vote for a Paletinian state.
It is hard to imagine a Quartet with only one American violin.
There never was any genuine prospect for peace between the Jews and Godless Arab Muslims–the notion of peace was insanity–there can be no peace with Islam and its violent adherents!
the error is to play these games in the the first place. There is no necessity to engage in playing against a stacked deck. The US will not operate outside of its direct interests regardless of international law. However, Israel must have a response to the PA going to the UN in breach of the unilateral action provision of the Oslo accords. If Israel does not respond by declaring Oslo null and void it will bring all these further troubles on itself. Declaring Oslo null and void will have the primary benefit of declaring to the world the reassessment of all prior paradigms governing Israels prior diplomatic efforts to reconcile with the arabs. This presents the grand opportunity for a paradigm shift. Israel should then declare reversals to prior approaches.
1- Repudiate all prior paradigms that reduce, cancel, limit, rescind, jewish settlement rights west of JOrdan river
2-Begin an aggressive Jewish settlement campaign to settle Jews west of the Jordan River based on the relevant legal documents of san remo, LofN mandate and UN charter Art 80
3- Implement an affirmative action plan designed to restore justice to the Jews and correct prior injustice of blocking Jewish settlement rights by prior GOI and Jordanian administrations.
4- Declare that the PLO and PA were allowed into Israel under the Oslo Accord and that the breach and nullification of the Oslo Accord removes the legal basis of continuing residence for those parties, their descendants and all other members of affiliated institutions(PA,Militias,etc) Immediately transfer, starting with the top cadre, to Gaza, Lebanon and/or Syria as no agreements or cooperation is necessary with the un-treatied states in belligerency.
5-Declare that agreements and UN resolutions which conflict with the still legally binding Palestine Mandate, San Remo and UN Charter Art 80 directives will be repudiated and considered null and void having been made under duress(242,181,), shown to be failed propositions(242,181) or having no legally binding effect(181)
6-Declare that the illegal creation of Jordan by the UK as JEW FREE, banishing Jewish settlement from 77% of land previously designated primarily for Jewish settlement under Balfour Declaration, is a De Facto, A Priori evidence that the land severed was created from former Palestine as the SOLE home for previous non Jewish residents of the former Palestine with the remaining to be allocated to Jewish settlement and under Jewish sovereignty as directed in Mandate Trust documents.
7- Declare that the precedences of the creation and maintenance of JEW FREE Jordan, The expelling of Jews from Arab nations, the maintenance of JEW FREE areas which are under arab control in former Palestine(Y&S, Gaza,Jordan)will form the basis to complete the population exchange with the former belligerents in prior wars and others who expelled Jews.
8-Declare that Israel will be willing to cooperate to facilitate a humaitarian and multilateral population exchange in accordance with all prior precedents of poulation exchanges and refugees. Israel suggests that all UN, EU, US,Arab financing which currently finances the arab refugees and arab terror can be rerouted to resettlement and absorption to produce desired results. Israel further suggests that a declaration by Jordan of its own Palestinian status coupled with financial incentives can resolve the refugee issue and create the Palestine on the original Palestine mandate territory given for that JEW FREE purpose.
9-declare that if there is no cooperation to facilitate transfer it will transfer populations unilaterally across the border of any belligerent nation or entity
10-That remaining arabs within Y&S will be considered stateless or Jordanian, as they were prior to Jordans unilateral withdrawal of citizenship. That they will not be granted citizenship of Israel as it would conflict, and create double standards, with the JEW FREE creation and maintenance of Jordan, the Palestine mandate regarding settlement and ultimate sovereignty of Jews west of Jordan river, the example of Jall arab areas of former mandate territories remaining JEW FREE, the stated desire of PA to be JEW FREE, and the incontrovertible evidence proven through many decades the inability of the arabs of west bank to live peacefully with and in respect for Jews.
As the Pals have already operated to breach Oslo,Israel has this one grand opportunity to seize the excuse to reverse prior swindles and injustice to Jews by declaring Oslo null and void and reestablishing completely new policies. Regardless of Oslo, regardless of any peace process there is still the ongoing legal obligation to settle jews west of the jordan river and this shuld be the absolute prime direction of the Israeli govt as this can progress while other things are on hold. This requires an overt embracing of jewish legal settlement rights and an overt commitment to reversing the current status quo of injustice to jews to facilitate others. An overt grand Jewish settlement affirmative actin plan can be done immediately. If he Jew is not for the Jew who will be for him? Time for a change and the time is now!