Talk:Mandate for Palestine

Drafting

I don't know if it was intended to be so, I realize there were many drafts, it was in the table at one point, I'm not sure why it disappeared but it seems that we have little or no discussion over one well known and possibly important draft, sometimes called the Foreign Office draft of 15 March 1920, sent from Vansittart in Paris to Curzon and being the first that Curzon commented on at any length. (This was just before the Nebi Musa riots and San Remo and also the version that Samuel had at his disposal when he was assigned to Palestine in June and it is the version over which important discussion was had as to the meaning of the Declaration.) I can't find the draft anywhere myself and I don't know how it differs from the December 1919 version so I am going to include something in the "Curzon negotiations" section. Selfstudier (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed – unfortunately I have been unable to locate this March draft as well. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The article says "on receiving a draft of 15 March, 1921" but the source says 1920. I won't change it in case it is more than a one-digit typo. Zero^talk 10:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if the interlibrary-loan system can get something from the UK Parliamentary Archives, see [1]. Zero^talk 10:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Just put this here for now so I don't forget about it. p205 Points to Seeds of Conflict, in there too. Selfstudier (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 24 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn. Heanor (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Mandate for Palestine → Mandate for Palestine and Transjordan – 'Mandate for Palestine and Transjordan' would be a much WP:PRECISE title for this article. This would also be WP:CONSISTENT with Mandate for Syria and Lebanon, which I find to be a bonus. Heanor (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

See the actual original mandate documents in the infoboxes of both articles. This document was just “Mandate for Palestine”; it was not renamed when Transjordan was added. The other is actually called “Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon”. So the current situation is the precise one. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Onceinawhile is correct. Zero^talk 13:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 November 2023

Would it not make sense to add the image of the mandate's map

underneath the command paper? Or anywhere else for that matter, just like the mandate for Syria and Lebanon has the map showing the states of the French Mandate from 1921 to 1922. Tomer0412 (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 November 2023

Request to restore a colon that an editor changed to a comma.

Please change this: Two of Britain's allies were not fully engaged, the United States had yet to suffer a casualty, and the Russians were in the midst of the October revolution.

To this: Two of Britain's allies were not fully engaged: the United States had yet to suffer a casualty, and the Russians were in the midst of the October revolution. JerryOBrien (talk) 09:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please discuss this at the editor's talk page first in order to reach a consensus. NotAGenious (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Legal section (moved from user talk page)

The article is identified as a good article.

However, the legal section is deficient. The section should be understandable to the average reader.

The section states at the outset that the legality of the mandate has been disputed in detail by scholars, particularly its consistency with Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, followed by a slew of citations. Given that the average reader is unlikely to go to library or buy these books, and that "scholarly" arguments might be too abstruse, I would suggest that you summarize these arguments in the text, with additionally commentary, as appropriate, in the footnotes.

The section is also missing key information which you can find on the talk page, reverted from me. In sum, the League of Nations Covenant contains several provisions directly affecting the legality of the Mandate. Perhaps you can find a book on that since it is basic, yet critical, to the understanding concerning whether the Mandate is legal.

"It is true that al-Husayni was already an avid nationalist, and in August 1922 he joined in opposing the formation of a Legislative Council proposed by Samuel... they did not find the Council's composition or its proposed powers fair. The Council reserved 43 percent of the membership-10 seats out of 23-for the Palestinians even though they constituted 88 percent of the population, and it forbade discussion of political matters."

https://ismi.emory.edu/documents/Readings/Mattar,%20Philip%20Mufti%20of%20Jrslm.pdf

In February 1922- A delegation of Palestinian Arab leaders, led by Musa al-Husayni, informs Winston Churchill at the Colonial Office that they cannot accept the Mandate or the Balfour Declaration and demand their national independence. (Wikipedia) Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant specifically stipulated that:

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire [including Palestine] have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.

https://www.ungeneva.org/en/about/league-of-nations/covenant

Two points:

1) The power of Britain in the Mandate shall be limited in scope to rendering administrative advice and assistance. The British violated this in the actual Mandate legalized in 1922 and thereafter, changing land laws for example.

"The deliberations of the Advisory Council were followed in due course by the promulgation of an Ordinance, known as the Land Transfer Ordinance of 1921." (emphasis in bold added).

Great Britain, 1930 : Report of the Commission on the Palestine Disturbances of August 1929, Command paper Cmd. 3530 (Shaw Commission report), pg. 115.

"The Ordinance of 1929 gives rights to a tenant who is dispossessed which are very different from the rights which, by the Ordinance of 1921, it was contemplated should be given to such persons. The new law does nothing to secure to those dispossessed "-a sufficient area for the maintenance of their families." In other words it is unlikely that this law will have the effect of diminishing the numbers of those rendered landless or divorced from the soil in consequence of the purchase over their heads of the holdings on the cultivation of which they now rely for their subsistence." Id. at 117

2) The Wishes of the community, which then did not include new Jewish immigrants after the League of Nations' Covenant was promulgated, must be the principal consideration. To provide a rough estimate, by the time of the Ottoman Empire’s dissolution, the Arab population in Palestine numbered 729,873, of whom 7,143 were Jews.

Mutaz M. Qafisheh, The International Law Foundations of Palestinian Nationality: A Legal Examination of Palestinian Nationality Under the British Rule, Vol.7 (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 93.

The Palestinian position was made clear. They rejected the Balfour Agreement's inclusion in the Mandate and the rights bestowed on Jewish immigrants. The expansion of Article 22 provisions in the text of the Mandate was also rejected.

Additionally, Article 20 of the League of Nations covenant states that:

The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.

The literature of the time states:

"Secondly, the Balfour Declaration is contrary to several articles of the League of Nations Covenant which is really the authority from which the theory of the Mandate itself is derived. Article 20 says that: " In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/pb-assets/assets/14682346/3._An_Arab_View_of_the_Situation_in_Palestine_by_Emile_Ghory.pdf pg. 686 Biolitblue (talk) 21:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Biolitblue, thank you for these comments. I agree that the "Legality" section is deficient. I believe I added that section, but I ran out of time to do as you rightly suggest, i.e. to summarize these arguments in the text, with additionally commentary, as appropriate, in the footnotes.

With respect to your comments above, they are helpful but please remember what is written at WP:PST - we should use secondary sources where possible. This topic has many secondary sources, so those should be the principal basis for coverage here.

I do not currently have time to address this topic, but if you have time, your efforts would be appreciated. I suggest you propose a draft of the revised text here. I am happy to provide comments and support.

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

In support my contention that, as a matter of law, the Balfour Declaration must be abrogated immediately pursuant to Article 20 of the League of Nations (see above), which would in turn prevent its incorporation into the Mandate for Palestine, another legal expert has stated:

Noura [Erakat]: "Far from establishing a legal void, the sovereign exception designated Palestine as a sui generis mandate and justified the creation of new law where no other law could apply. It was on this basis that the Permanent Mandate Commission rejected Palestinian legal arguments that the designation of Palestine as a Jewish settlement violated multiple articles of the League of Nations Charter. The Palestinian argument included most notably Article 20, which prohibited a Mandatory Power (Britain) from undertaking an obligation (establishing a Jewish national home in Palestine) in contravention of the terms of the Covenant (ushering a native population to independence)."

https://twailr.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Noura-Erakat-John-Reynolds-TWAILR-Dialogues-International-Law-and-the-Question-of-Palestine.pdf Biolitblue (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree it would be good to make this point around Article 20 clear in the relevant section. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)