Obama and Kerry open door for Palestine Mandate Solution
US Secretary of State John Kerry – perhaps unwittingly – has now opened the door to reviving the solution contained in the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine – one homeland for the Jews and one homeland for the Arabs (“Palestine Mandate Solution”)…writes David Singer.This solution has already been realised in 95% of the territory of the Mandate with the creation of the Arab State of Jordan in 1946 and the Jewish State of Israel in 1948.
Kerry completely ignored mentioning the Palestine Mandate Solution in his speech whilst reiterating on many occasions that there was no viable alternative to the creation of a second Arab State – in addition to Jordan (“the two state solution”) – in the 5% of the Mandate territory still remaining unallocated – Judea and Samaria (West Bank) Gaza and East Jerusalem (“unallocated Mandate territory”)
The longer Kerry spoke on what was needed to be done to achieve the two-state solution after fruitless negotiations extending over 23 years – the more it became obvious that such a result was totally unrealistic and unachievable.
His prediction that failure would result in the creation of one State between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea – is alarmist and simply fanciful.
Why did Kerry avoid any mention of the Palestine Mandate Solution being a viable alternative to the two state solution – especially as Jordan and Egypt occupied the unallocated Mandate territory between 1948 and 1967 – and both have long-standing peace treaties with Israel?
The only reason seems his apparent ignorance of the history of the conflict as evidenced by his two following remarks:
- Kerry referred to the first Zionist Congress in 1897 called to realise the Jewish dream – but failed to mention the San Remo Conference and Treaty of Sevres in 1920 and the Palestine Mandate in 1922 which set out the framework unanimously agreed to by the international community for the
“reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine”
The Mandate is legally binding in international law and it cannot be flippantly ignored by Kerry. The benefits conferred by the Mandate on the Jewish people to settle in the unallocated Mandate territory have been preserved by article 80 of the UN Charter – another piece of international law that did not rate a mention by Kerry.
Kerry and Obama have ignored these binding international law provisions to their dying shame.
- Kerry refers to an intimate, one-on-one dinner with Israel’s Shimon Peres just a few months before he died and quotes Peres as having told him:
“The original mandate gave the Palestinians 48 percent; now it’s down to 22 percent. I think 78 percent is enough for us.”
Peres got it wrong – and so has Kerry in quoting him.
Israel presently constitutes 17% – not 78% – of the original mandate
Peres was talking about the area allocated for a second Arab State in 22% of the original Mandate territory by the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan. The remaining 78% had become an independent Arab State in 1946.
The additional 48% was not enough for the Arabs. They wanted 100% – rejected the UN Plan and saw it whittled down to 22% after the 1948 War of Independence and the 1967 Six Day War.
The Arabs – with Security Council Resolution 2334 and now Obama and Kerry’s backing – demand another Arab State in an area equivalent to the remaining 22% – having rejected offers of 90% in 2000/1 and 95% in 2008.
It won’t happen.
The UN Security Council buried the two-state solution on 23 December 2016. John Kerry delivered the eulogy on 28 December 2016.
The Palestine Mandate Solution beckons….
David Singer is a Sydney Lawyer and Foundation Member of the International Analysts Network
Just remembered: the person I mentioned in my 9:35 pm post was Prof. Eugene Kantorovich of Mid-West University.
“The border between Israel and Jordan will be redrawn and each country will assert sovereignty over the territory within its own internationally recognised borders.”
Er…why?
When the Brits created Trans-Jordan, the border established was the Jordan River and as a law prof at a US mid-west uni (sorry, his surname starting with K slips my mind), pointed out that that remains the international border.
So, instead of redrawing borders, why not give the Arabs of Judea and Samaria Jordanian citizenship with residency rights and self-government in Area A, where 95% of them live?
Surely by now it is obvious that a “people” constructed to deny Jewish self-determination, who are murderous, Jew hating liars, have forfeited all entitlement or consideration for statehood when those local Arabs threaten the Bedouin Hashemites, who rule only with Israeli support.
Paul
The Palestine Mandate solution beckons because it now remains standing as the only viable option to resolve the 100 years old Jewish conflict.
The majority of the Arab residents of Judea and Samaria will once again become Jordanian citizens as they were between 1950 to 1988.
The balance of the Arab residents will become Israeli citizens.
The 1947 UN plan was only a recommendation and has no legal binding effect
Resolutions 242 and 337 will have been satisfied with conclusion of the Israel-Jordan agreement.
Oslo and the Bush Roadmap will join the pile of proposals that end up in the garbage bin of history like so many other failed ideas during the last 100 years.
The border between Israel and Jordan will be redrawn and each country will assert sovereignty over the territory within its own internationally recognised borders.
Adrian
Not sure what you mean by your question.
Please amplify.
Erica
The two-state solution has always been an idea with no basis or substance since the UN Palestine Commission came up with the idea in 1947, the UN General Assembly approved it and the Arabs rejected it.
Trying to flog a dead horse has caused terrible suffering for both Jews and Arabs.
Yes it is time to turn back to the solution first proposed in 1922 – one homeland for the Jews and one – not two – for the Arabs.
That solution has been implemented for 95% of the territory involved. Finishing the job should take no more than three months.
It seems obvious to me that the biggest irony of our time is that the only nation that really cares about the well being and future of the Palestinians is Israel! If any other country including the USA would stop to consider what is in the best interests of the Palestinians, they would surely conclude that the need to come to terms with the existence of Israel as a Jewish State is of paramount importance if there is to be a real meaningful peace with a two state solution in place.
It is difficult to think of any other international dispute between two peoples living so close together that was resolved with one people refusing to recognise the existence of the other.
It is incredibly sad to witness the widespread disinterest in the future of the Palestinian people by most nations of the world including of course the Arab nations. Egypt and Jordan enjoy increased prosperity with trade and commerce with Israel – but both these countries have little to offer by way of guidance to the Palestinians to achieve the same goal.
I shouldn’t be surprised by the apathy of the world toward the Palestinians-after all, what has the UN done about Syria or Nigeria or numerous other hotspots of deadly violence.
If the Palestinians continue in their UN approved path toward nationhood without recognising Israel and form a military capacity with which to direct hostilities toward Israel, maybe the world will then sit up as Israel defends herself against their new State. Tragedy of immense proportions awaits the Palestinians if their leadership fails to secure proper meaningful relations with Israel, and insist instead in continuing their animosity toward Israel.
“The Palestine Mandate Solution beckons…”. What does that mean?
Do the Arabs who pretend to be a people miss out getting a state they claim they want?
Does it mean that the 1947 partition plan, UNSC 242 & 343, the Oslo Accords and the Road Map become null and void.
Does it mean that Israel is entitled to land west of the Jordan or that Israel is now required to restart negotiations from scratch or that the international community is not obliged to reconsider or revoke binding international legislation?
In that case why hadn’t the Holy See mentioned it if sincere in their effort to bring peace instead of playing one against the other. Francis stated there’s a Christian cunning that differs from a crook and in my opinion, he would have to know surviving the Argentine dictatorship to his present status….
Were is multiculturalism in all this?
Both ways the Arabs want it – and it’s dead and buried as you say.
It’s complicated but not that complicated. San Remo holds
The key. The Arabs want cherry picking. They can only
Grow the orchard from the ground up now. Too late for the crop.
The crop belongs to Israel and the vines are heavy with expectation.
Israel will win this one.