Op-Ed: What Harvard Didn´t Want to Hear: Part I (INN) ISRAEL NATIONAL NEWS) Wallace Edward Brand, JD 03/19/12)
INN} ISRAEL NATIONAL NEWS
INN} ISRAEL NATIONAL NEWS Articles-Index-Top
Arutz Sheva comes to the aid of free speech. A succinct exposition of
facts and law in support of Israel´s lawful exercise of sovereignty
over East Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria that Harvard and UCLA don´t
want to hear.
Background (part of letter written by the author, a Harvard and UCLA
alumnus, to UCLA):
On March 3,4 there was a conference held at Harvard on a one state
solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. In effect it was a "one Arab
majority state" solution. The panel consisted of Arab academics and
Israel post modern revisionist who are apologists for terrorism. The
other side or sides were completely missing. Harvard would not accept
our request to be part of a panel or make a presentation.
A similar conference was held or is soon to be held at UCLA. A
second conference is likely at Harvard sponsored by Professor Alan
Dershowitz of the Harvard Law School on a "two state solution" to
the Arab Israeli conflict.
There are in fact three sides. That last would be "a one lawful
state West of the Jordan River" solution. These three sides are akin
to a three legged stool. When only one or two sides is presented it
makes for a strong presentation but not a very balanced one.
I have been trying to find out how this third side could be presented
at UCLA and I have been told by all my contacts at UCLA that it is
impossible. They tell me that UCLA is just too politically correct.
So I am making a last effort. I have published information on the
three sides in an on-line blog entitled "Middle East and Terrorism"
and a conservative Israeli newspaper called "Arutz Sheva", and I
hope, at the very least, that you will make the links available to
students at UCLA so they have access to a balanced presentation to a
solution for the Arab Israeli conflict.
At least three nation-states, the UK, the US and Canada allow
evidence of legislative purpose to be admitted to show the meaning of
a statute that is ambiguous.
What follows is a necessary minimum of that evidence to show the
purpose of the Balfour Declaration that was adopted by the WWI Allies
at San Remo that established the International Law provided by that
Agreement and the British Mandate for Palestine.
It is widely accepted, but not correct, that the West Bank belongs to
the local Arabs in Palestine who in 1964, at the suggestion of the
Soviet dezinformatsia, decided to call themselves "Palestinians.” 
These "invented people"  also pretend they had long had a passion
for self government.  The full extent of Israel’s claim of
sovereignty has not recently been stated. At most, it is said by the
Israeli government that no one has sovereignty over the West Bank,
but that Israel has the better claim. 
A better view is that the Jews obtained a beneficial interest in
sovereignty over all of Palestine in the 1922 enactment of the
British Mandate for Palestine, that entrusted exclusive political or
national rights in Palestine to Britain in trust for the benefit of
the Jews that later matured into a legal interest on the abandonment
of the trusteeship by Britain and the attainment of the Jews of a
The trusts or guardianships were to be called "mandates”.
It was in 1919 that Jan Smuts submitted a memorandum to the League,
which later became Article 22. The Council of Ten drafted for the
League of Nations as Part I of the Treaty of Versailles , an
Article 22 providing for trusts and guardianships for the areas in
The Middle East and North Africa captured by the WWI Allies from the
Ottoman Empire. This concept was later applied to other areas.
Article 22´s first two paragraphs provided a reasonably clear showing
that a mandate was based on the longstanding British legal concepts
of trusts and guardianships.
In 1917, in advance of the end of WWI, the British had drafted and
published a policy for the disposition of the captured Ottoman lands
in Palestine.  Britain and France were at that time following
the “secret’ Sykes-Picot Agreement in their disposition of Ottoman
Lands. But in recognition of the historic association of the Jews
with Palestine, the Balfour Declaration, a British Policy approved
it its Cabinet, provided for exclusive political or national rights
in Palestine to be granted to the Jews.
The 1920 agreement of the WWI Allies at San Remo, on the terms of the
Mandate turned what had been only a British Policy approved by the
Cabinet, into International Law. Under Article 22 of the League of
Nations Covenant, the rights were to be provided in trust, .
We know this because the Balfour policy had been attacked as
antidemocratic, as giving sovereignty to the Jewish people who
constituted only 60,000 of the total population of 600,000 in
Palestine as of 1917.
In Jerusalem, the Jews had had a plurality of the population since
1845 and a majority since 1863, but in all of Palestine, in 1917 they
constituted only 10% of the population. Even US President Woodrow
Wilson was advancing that argument that award of sovereignty to a
minority population was inconsistent with his 14 points that
provided, among other things, for majority control.
To counter this argument, which they conceded was a good one, Arnold
Toynbee and James Namier in the British Foreign Office, in a
memorandum of September 19, 1917  said the problem of control by a
minority was "imaginary" because they predicted that the grant would
be placed in trust and would not vest sovereignty in the Jews until
the Jews fit to govern it on modern European state.
In my view these included attainment of a majority population,
defined boundaries, unified control over all within the boundaries,
etc.. Providing a National Home for Jews in Palestine with the
British running the government until the Jews could attain a majority
status based on favored immigration from the Jews in the Diaspora
would be a temporary measure and not antidemocratic. 
The statement of the purpose of the British Mandate for Palestine in
its Preamble and Article 2 is entirely consistent with this view
although not express. 
What was the National Home, a reconstituted state? No, it was a
place for the Jewish people to feel at home while the immigration was
going on that would ultimately give the Jews a majority of the
population and a reconstituted state. So that the staff of the
British Mandatory Power, will know how to do that: Article 4 provides
for the Zionist Organization to advise the mandate government staff.
Part of Article 6 requires the staff of the Mandatory Power for The
Administration of Palestine, to facilitate immigration of Jews. The
Mandate does NOT provide that immigration of any other peoples is to
be facilitated. (emphasis added) Article 5 provides that none of the
land is to be ceded to a foreign power.
Who were the beneficiaries of the trust? Only the Jews, both those
already in Palestine and many more scattered worldwide in the
Diaspora since the time of the Roman Empire conquest of Palestine.
Howard Grief, who has provided the seminal work on the legal
foundations of Israel under International Law, says one can conclude
this because they are the only people mentioned to be dealt with
specially. The non-Jews are referred to only to ensure their
civil and religious rights are to be protected.
Because Article 22 of the League Covenant defined the relationship of
Britain and the Jews as trustee and guardian with Jews in effect
being beneficiaries and ward the Mandate essentially provided for a
Jewish National Home that would be supervised by the British until
its ward was capable of exercising sovereignty, including helping it
attain a majority of population it needed to do that. It was charged
with facilitating such immigration.
All this purpose was not expressed very clearly in the Mandate,
likely to avoid stirring up the Arabs in time of war that might bleed
off troops to maintain stability in Palestine. But the Arabs did
understand that this was the case.
After the war, the Arabs were told by Winston Churchill that the
request for self government by the inhabitants of Palestine would be
denied until such time as the Jews had attained a majority of the
population. They made that understanding clear in their arguments
against Partition in the UNSCOP hearings in 1947. 
The Arabs argued in 1947 "It was clear from the beginning that if
Palestine were to be turned into a Jewish national home, this would
involve the indefinite denial of self-government until such time as
the Jews were strong enough to take over the government; that pending
such time, Palestine would have to be subjected to a foreign
administration [of England] which had no basis in the consent of the
population and of which the policy would be determined, not by
consideration of the welfare of the population, but by the desire to
assist in the settlement of an alien group; and that to make such a
settlement possible the country would have to be cut off from the
surrounding Arab lands by artificial frontiers, would be given a
separate system of law, administration, finance, tariffs, and
education and would thus inevitably lose some if not all of the Arab
But that is what the grantors had in mind and the Arabs knew it when
they argued against Partition in 1947.  They had learned after
WWI from Winston Churchill this was their intention.
"As the first Arab delegation to England stated in the course of its
correspondence with Mr. Churchill, then Secretary of State for the
Colonies, ´we are to understand ...that self-government will be
granted as soon as the Jewish people in Palestine are sufficiently
able through numbers and powers to benefit to the full by it, and not
Prior to the publishing of the British Mandate the French attached
a "proce’s verbal" in French shown only in the French Version. 
This was their agreement only on their stated understanding that the
Mandate would not eliminate any existing rights of the non-Jews in
Palestine. The League had no objection to the process verbal.
The Mandate expressly preserved existing civil and religious rights
of the non-Jews. It could not preserve their political rights
because they had never had any. The preservation of their civil
rights only protected their individual political rights, ie. their
electoral rights. It did not protect their collective political
rights or national rights, the right of sovereignty and political
The Arabs in Palestine had always been ruled from afar. So the
Mandate carried out the “process verbal”
Why, in 1917, did Britain establish a policy that gave a preference
to the Jews? There were several reasons.
1. Britain´s Prime Minister at the time of the Balfour Declaration
was David Lloyd-George. Later, in 1923, he was the author of an
article "The Jews and Palestine"  In it he revealed his view
that the Arabs under Ottoman Rule had turned Palestine, the Biblical
land of milk and honey into a malarial wasteland. He believed it
could be remedied under a reconstituted Jewish State.
2. There was considerable sympathy among many Christian Evangelicals
in England who thought the Jews should be restored to Palestine to
flee from the pogroms of Russia and Poland. This sympathy did not
extend to receiving them in England. British workmen had complained
that Jews were flooding in to England and taking their jobs and
working for less. This led to the Aliens Act of 1909 restricting
Jewish immigration into England.
But the British recognized that the oppression of the Jews in Russia
and Poland was very bad and they needed some place to go. 
3. Chaim Weismann, an ardent Zionist and also a good chemist, had
helped Britain in the war by developing an inexpensive method of
manufacturing acetone used in cordite for munitions and had given it
to the British. It was a great help to the British war effort. 
4. And England, according to Winston Churchill, also desired to win
over the Jews in Russia, many of them in the Bolshevik government, so
that they might influence the new Marxist government to remain in
battle with the Germans and Ottomans in WWI on the side of the
Allies. He thought that the Balfour Declaration could sway them in
British favor. 
There came a time after WWII that the British decided their effort to
be trustee was simply costing it too much. They tried to obtain some
funding from the United States, but the United States declined to do
so. Britain finally decided to abandon its trusteeship and
guardianship in 1948.
On the abandonment of its trusteeship by Britain in 1948, political
rights that were the "trust res" (the thing put in trust) devolved to
the Jews as beneficiaries or wards of the trust and vested in them
the political rights permitting them to exercise sovereignty. These
rights had survived the demise of the League of Nations by virtue of
Article 80 of the UN Charter.  It should be expressly noted that
the Jews did not receive these rights from the Partition Resolution.
By that time the Jewish population had increased significantly. In
1947 the UN General Assembly had recommended that the Jews give up
some of its rights in an attempt to avoid violence that had been
threatened by the Arabs if the Jews were to reconstitute their state
in Palestine. The Jews agreed to give up some of the land over which
they were to have political rights, but the Arabs rejected the
recommendation and commenced a war.
It was by the Arabs starting a war that led to a Jewish population
majority. Some 600,000 to 700,000 Arabs fled the country before even
seeing an Israeli soldier. The wealthy left first, at the first
foreshadowing of war. According to an article in the Wall Street
Journal, Mahmoud Abbas wrote this in the official organ of the
PLO, “Filanstin”, most of the rest left at the request of the Arab
Higher Committee that wanted to get them out of the way of the Arab
armies in the surrounding states. 
Many left because of a false report that the Irgun had committed a
massacre of Arabs at Deir Yassin, that the Haganah, their political
enemies did not dispute. A BBC program based on an interview of an
Arab radio commentator at the time revealed he had been pushed into
designating a hard fought battle as a massacre so as to provide an
excuse for the invasion of surrounding armies. 
Many Arabs local to Palestine left; some remained.
But those that left could not go back because the Arab Armies did not
In 1948 Israel declared Independence and vindicated its claim by
force of arms against the assault of other Arab states surrounding
it. It established an orderly unified stable control of its
territory except for Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem which had
been invaded and occupied by the Arab Legion in the East. This
British supplied and led organization became the Army of Jordan. 
In the South, the Egyptian Army was able to maintain its occupation
of the Gaza Strip.
In 1920 the Ottoman Empire in Article 95 of the Treaty of Sevres,had
ceded its sovereignty in Palestine, which had been undisputed for 400
years, to a Mandatory Power in trust for a National Homeland for the
Jews.  The Sevres Treaty was never ratified by the Turks who
were concerned over Turkey’s boundaries in Europe and in adjacent
areas in Asia, not in the Middle East and North. But these issues
were finally settled in 1923 in the Treaty of Lausanne that left the
agreements in the Middle East unchanged.
The trustee selected by the League of Nations at San Remo was Great
Britain; the US had been another possibiility. Sovereignty, i.e.
political rights, over the other 99% of the lands captured from the
Ottomans in the Middle East was allocated to Arab and Muslim
majorities in some 20 areas such as Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq but as
in the case of Palestine, in mandates of guardianship as the
inhabitants had had no prior experience in self rule.
While it was expected in 1920 that the Jewish Homeland would
eventually become a state when immigration gave the Jews a majority
of the population, at the time the Jews were incapable of exercising
sovereignty although the "Jewish Agency" was exercising
administrative authority of wide scope.
1. Brand, Soviet Russia, The Creators of the PLO and the Palestinian
2. Newt Gingrich, Campaign speech, 2012 Republican Primary
3. Brand, Was there a Palestine Arab National Movement at the End of
the Ottoman Period? http://www.think-
 Danny Ayalon, Israel´s current Deputy Foreign Minister, The Truth
About the West Bank /News/News.aspx/145836
 See the original documents in the Avalon Project at Yale
The Balfour Declaration Text
 See the first two paragraphs of Article 22
 Mueller, Editor, Churchill as a Peacemaker, Feith, p. 224 n. 36
citing Sir Martin Gilbert, Exile and Return, p. 111-12
 Charles Hill, Trial of a Thousand Years, World Order and
 San Remo Convention Text of the Mandate
 Howard Grief, The Legal Foundation and Borders of Israel under
International Law, p. 36
 The Future of Palestine" by Musa Alami with a foreword by Mr.
Alami. Hermon Press, Beirut, London (1970)
 Salomon Benzsimra, Jewish People’s Rights to the Land of Israel,
n. 68 See below
 David Lloyd George, The Jews and Palestine,
 Ronald Sanders, The High Walls of Jerusalem, A history of the
Balfour Declaration and the Birth of the British Mandate for
Palestine. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York (1983) p. 90-94
 High Walls at 189
 Sir Martin Gilbert, Churchill and the Jews,Gilbert reveals the
beliefs that moved the British government to issue the
Declaration: “The War Cabinet hoped that, inspired by the promise of
a national home in Palestine, Russian Jews would encourage Russia—
then in the throes of revolution—to stay in the war,. . .
 Abu Mazen Charges that the Arab States Are the Cause of the
Palestinian Refugee Problem (Wall Street Journal; June 5, 2003)
 http://athena.hri.org/docs/sevres/part3.html (IsraelNationalNews
© 2012 03/19/12)
Return to Top
MATERIAL REPRODUCED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY