Foundation Stone of the State of Israel

Foundation Stone of the State of Israel

Although the Balfour declaration should Britain's intention to facilitate a Jewish homeland in Palestine, the Allied troops had made that possible in the victories against the Ottomans, the decoration itself had no legal validity. It was left the victorious powers at the end of the Great War to determine what should happen to the captured territories.

Although the Balfour declaration should Britain's intention to facilitate a Jewish homeland in Palestine, the Allied troops had made that possible in the victories against the Ottomans, the decoration itself had no legal validity. It was left the victorious powers at the end of the Great War to determine what should happen to the captured territories.

Andrew Tucker guides us through the legal process.

Andrew Tucker guides us through the legal process.

As the First World War drew to a close with the impending collapse of the Ottoman Empire in sight, Britain was engaged in intense discussions with the other European powers especially France, Italy and Russia, regarding the potential division of the Ottoman Empire. It was a period of great unrest; much was at stake. Britain designed to gain the support of Jews in Russia and America. France declared in support for the restoration of the Jewish homeland in Palestine, when it had been so many centuries before. This implied that they did not want to implement the – Initially secret – Sykes-Picot Agreement, concluded 1916 between Britain and France, by which they had divided their spheres of influence in the Levant.

Since 1897, Zionist leaders had been seeking the support of influential states – including United Kingdom – for a realisation of the ideal formulated in the Basel program ‘to create for the Jewish people are home in Palestine secured by public law’. After much internal debate and consultation, on 31 October 1917 the British government decided to clear it support for the Zionist dream.

As the First World War drew to a close with the impending collapse of the Ottoman Empire in sight, Britain was engaged in intense discussions with the other European powers especially France, Italy and Russia, regarding the potential division of the Ottoman Empire. It was a period of great unrest; much was at stake. Britain designed to gain the support of Jews in Russia and America. France declared in support for the restoration of the Jewish homeland in Palestine, when it had been so many centuries before. This implied that they did not want to implement the – Initially secret – Sykes-Picot Agreement, concluded 1916 between Britain and France, by which they had divided their spheres of influence in the Levant.

Resulting Balfour declaration was a political document and was neither intended nor effective to create and binding rights and obligations. And yet the Balfour declaration has enormously legal significance to this very day. Without it, the state of Israel could not have been created, and the concept of a ‘Jewish Homeland’ remains one of the most contentious issues in Israel/Palestine conflict.

Since 1897, Zionist leaders had been seeking the support of influential states – including United Kingdom – for a realisation of the ideal formulated in the Basel program ‘to create for the Jewish people are home in Palestine secured by public law’. After much internal debate and consultation, on 31 October 1917 the British government decided to clear it support for the Zionist dream.

Resulting Balfour declaration was a political document and was neither intended nor effective to create and binding rights and obligations. And yet the Balfour declaration has enormously legal significance to this very day. Without it, the state of Israel could not have been created, and the concept of a ‘Jewish Homeland’ remains one of the most contentious issues in Israel/Palestine conflict.

‘The Balfour Declaration has enormous legal significance to this very day’

On the same day the decision was made by the Cabinet in London, British and Anzac forces secured the town of Beersheba, opening the way from Gen Allenby to liberate Jerusalem little more than a month later. The British place the city of Jerusalem under military control in September 1918, upon the defeat of the Ottoman Empire. Martial law was imposed, until the British Civil Administration was established in July 1920 in anticipation of the Mandate for Palestine.

‘The Balfour Declaration has enormous legal significance to this very day.’

The League of Nations had been established during the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. Inspired by US President Woodrow Wilson’s famous 14 points, the objective of the League was to create an international legal structure enabling political co-operation and maintenance of peace based on the self-determination of peoples.

On the same day the decision was made by the Cabinet in London, British and Anzac forces secured the town of Beersheba, opening the way from Gen Allenby to liberate Jerusalem little more than a month later. The British place the city of Jerusalem under military control in September 1918, upon the defeat of the Ottoman Empire. Martial law was imposed, until the British Civil Administration was established in July 1920 in anticipation of the Mandate for Palestine.

These considerations ultimately resulted in article 22 of the covenant of the League of Nations, which established a system of mandates applicable to the former German colonies and to the territories that have been part of the collapsed Ottoman Turkish Empire.

The League of Nations had been established during the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. Inspired by US President Woodrow Wilson’s famous 14 points, the objective of the League was to create an international legal structure enabling political co-operation and maintenance of peace based on the self-determination of peoples.

The mandate system was intended to benefit the pupils of these territories whose ‘well-being and development’ was referred to as ‘a sacred trust of civilisation’. The mandated nation was obliged to act as a kind of trustee representing the conscience of the civilised world.

These considerations ultimately resulted in article 22 of the covenant of the League of Nations, which established a system of mandates applicable to the former German colonies and to the territories that have been part of the collapsed Ottoman Turkish Empire.

The San Remo Resolution

The mandate system was intended to benefit the pupils of these territories whose ‘well-being and development’ was referred to as ‘a sacred trust of civilisation’. The mandated nation was obliged to act as a kind of trustee representing the conscience of the civilised world.

The San Remo Resolution

The supreme Council of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers (Britain, France, Italy, Japan and the USA) reconvened the Paris Peace Summit in San Remo, Italy in April 1920 to deliberate on the future of the territories which had been captured from the Ottoman Empire.

The supreme Council of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers (Britain, France, Italy, Japan and the USA) reconvened the Paris Peace Summit in San Remo, Italy in April 1920 to deliberate on the future of the territories which had been captured from the Ottoman Empire.

As victors, the allies had gained extensive rights and powers over these territories. The Allies decided to create 3 mandates under article 22 of the covenant of the League of Nations - Syria/Lebanon, Mesopotamia (now Iraq) and Palestine. The mandate for Palestine was intended to facilitate the creation of the National Home for the Jewish people, in accordance with the Balfour Declaration.

As victors, the allies had gained extensive rights and powers over these territories. The Allies decided to create 3 mandates under article 22 of the covenant of the League of Nations - Syria/Lebanon, Mesopotamia (now Iraq) and Palestine. The mandate for Palestine was intended to facilitate the creation of the National Home for the Jewish people, in accordance with the Balfour Declaration.

Mandate of Palestine

The mandate of Palestine states: “Recognition has therefore been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.” This immediately shows the unique character of the mandate for Palestine when compared with the other mandates which created rights for the population already living in the mandated territory.

Mandate of Palestine

The mandate of Palestine states: “Recognition has therefore been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.” This immediately shows the unique character of the mandate for Palestine when compared with the other mandates which created rights for the population already living in the mandated territory.

The Jews, in contrast, were at that time only about 10% of the population in public Palestine. Most of the beneficiaries of the mandate Palestine - the Jewish people - where that's living outside the Mandate area. The creation of the Jewish Homeland could only be brought about by making it possible for the Jews to return to the land of their forefathers and to settle in the land.

The Jews, in contrast, were at that time only about 10% of the population in public Palestine. Most of the beneficiaries of the mandate Palestine - the Jewish people - where that's living outside the Mandate area. The creation of the Jewish Homeland could only be brought about by making it possible for the Jews to return to the land of their forefathers and to settle in the land.

‘My personal hope is that the Jews will make good in Palestine and eventually found a Jewish State’

‘My personal hope is that the Jews will make good in Palestine and eventually found a Jewish State.’

Rights of Inhabitants

Rights of Inhabitants

The Balfour Declaration and a Mandate of Palestine are often criticised for having effectively imposed Jewish state on the Arab inhabitants of the land. There are two answers to this.

First, the Palestine mandate was part of the total mandate system that expressly intended and achieved a foundation for the establishment of several new Arabic nation states in the former Turkish territories - Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan (later Jordan), Iraq and Saudi Arabia are examples. Each of these countries contain significant Jewish populations who were no required to live as minorities in Islamic states. It was hardly unfair to allow the Jewish people to establish their own national home in the region.

The Balfour Declaration and a Mandate of Palestine are often criticised for having effectively imposed Jewish state on the Arab inhabitants of the land. There are two answers to this.

Second, the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate specifically required the Mandatory Power to ensure but the civil and religious rights of all non-Jewish inhabitants be protected. Their rights were also addressed in the provisions ensuring the protection of the holy places and religious buildings and sites, freedom of conscience, race, religion and worship, and the celebration of holy days. Indeed, the protection of minority rights referred to in the Balfour declaration is today one of the central features of the Israeli Declaration of Independence, making Israel the only true democracy in the Middle East.

First, the Palestine mandate was part of the total mandate system that expressly intended and achieved a foundation for the establishment of several new Arabic nation states in the former Turkish territories - Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan (later Jordan), Iraq and Saudi Arabia are examples. Each of these countries contain significant Jewish populations who were no required to live as minorities in Islamic states. It was hardly unfair to allow the Jewish people to establish their own national home in the region.

‘National Home’

Second, the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate specifically required the Mandatory Power to ensure but the civil and religious rights of all non-Jewish inhabitants be protected. Their rights were also addressed in the provisions ensuring the protection of the holy places and religious buildings and sites, freedom of conscience, race, religion and worship, and the celebration of holy days. Indeed, the protection of minority rights referred to in the Balfour declaration is today one of the central features of the Israeli Declaration of Independence, making Israel the only true democracy in the Middle East.

The Balfour declaration referred to a ‘National Home’ rather than the ‘State’. Of those involved in the creation of the Balfour Declaration, it was clear that the ultimate goal of the Mandate was to enable the creation of at Jewish state. Lord Balfour declared three months after the issuing of the declaration: “My personal hope is that the Jews will make good in Palestine and eventually found are Jewish State.” In a conversation with Chaim Weizmann in 1921, Balfour and Prime Minister Lloyd George declared that they both had intended the ultimate creation of a Jewish State.

‘National Home’

The Balfour declaration referred to a ‘National Home’ rather than the ‘State’. Of those involved in the creation of the Balfour Declaration, it was clear that the ultimate goal of the Mandate was to enable the creation of at Jewish state. Lord Balfour declared three months after the issuing of the declaration: “My personal hope is that the Jews will make good in Palestine and eventually found are Jewish State.” In a conversation with Chaim Weizmann in 1921, Balfour and Prime Minister Lloyd George declared that they both had intended the ultimate creation of a Jewish State.

Territorial Scope

The Balfour Declaration, San Remo Resolution and the Mandate for Palestine did not specifically define the borders of the Mandate Territory of Palestine. In the years following the San Remo Resolution of 1920, the principal Allied Powers agreed that the territory of Palestine was to include the territories lying between the Jordan River and the eastern boundary of Palestine (also known as ‘Transjordan’).

Territorial Scope

The Balfour Declaration, San Remo Resolution and the Mandate for Palestine did not specifically define the borders of the Mandate Territory of Palestine. In the years following the San Remo Resolution of 1920, the principal Allied Powers agreed that the territory of Palestine was to include the territories lying between the Jordan River and the eastern boundary of Palestine (also known as ‘Transjordan’).

However, at the last minute, at the request of Britain, article 25 was included in the Mandate, allowing the Mandatory Power, with the consent of the Council, to ‘postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this Mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions.’

Following a meeting in Cairo convened by Churchill in 1921, the British decided to administer the territories of Transjordan separately. The Emirate of Transjordan became the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan in 1946 (subsequently renamed Jordan in 1949). Jordan was, in reality, the estate for the Palestinian Arabs. A two state solution already existed in 1922.

However, at the last minute, at the request of Britain, article 25 was included in the Mandate, allowing the Mandatory Power, with the consent of the Council, to ‘postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this Mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions.’

The Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Resolution and the Mandate for Palestine together laid the legal and historical basis for the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. Some argue that that at San Remo the Jewish people indirectly received sovereignty over ‘Palestine’ from the principal Allied Powers - sovereignty that was inherited by the State of Israel on it’s establishment. Others argue that the borders of the State of Israel were determined by the International legal principle ‘uni possedetis juris’. This is the principle of customary international law that determined the borders and territorial sovereignty of almost all new states that have emerged in the last century.

Following a meeting in Cairo convened by Churchill in 1921, the British decided to administer the territories of Transjordan separately. The Emirate of Transjordan became the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan in 1946 (subsequently renamed Jordan in 1949). Jordan was, in reality, the estate for the Palestinian Arabs. A two state solution already existed in 1922.

In effect, the principal of ‘uni possedetis juris’ transforms the colonial and administrative lines existing at the moment of the birth of the new state into national borders. Based on this principle, it is arguable that the entire territory of Palestine west of the Jordan River became the territory of the newly independent State of Israel.

The Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Resolution and the Mandate for Palestine together laid the legal and historical basis for the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. Some argue that that at San Remo the Jewish people indirectly received sovereignty over ‘Palestine’ from the principal Allied Powers - sovereignty that was inherited by the State of Israel on it’s establishment. Others argue that the borders of the State of Israel were determined by the International legal principle ‘uni possedetis juris’. This is the principle of customary international law that determined the borders and territorial sovereignty of almost all new states that have emerged in the last century.

In effect, the principal of ‘uni possedetis juris’ transforms the colonial and administrative lines existing at the moment of the birth of the new state into national borders. Based on this principle, it is arguable that the entire territory of Palestine west of the Jordan River became the territory of the newly independent State of Israel.

Finally, it is important to note that dissolution of the League of Nations did not - and could not - terminate the rights and obligations under the Mandate of Palestine itself, nor the pre-existing rights of the Jewish people or the obligations of United Kingdom as Mandatory Power, because these had originally been conferred by the Allied Powers, not the League. Further, Article 80 of the UN Charter (often referred to as the Palestine Article) specifically protects the rights of the Jewish people and other peoples under the Mandates.

Finally, it is important to note that dissolution of the League of Nations did not - and could not - terminate the rights and obligations under the Mandate of Palestine itself, nor the pre-existing rights of the Jewish people or the obligations of United Kingdom as Mandatory Power, because these had originally been conferred by the Allied Powers, not the League. Further, Article 80 of the UN Charter (often referred to as the Palestine Article) specifically protects the rights of the Jewish people and other peoples under the Mandates.