Palestine – Burying the Past – Faking the Future
Richard Falk – United Nations Special Rapporteur on “the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967” – provides compelling proof of how successful the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) has been in its attempt to bury historical fact and international law regarding the former territory of Palestine…writes David Singer.
Mr Falk is not on his own among the United Nations coterie of organizations and officials who seem ready to try and wrest the title deeds granted to the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine pursuant to the Mandate for Palestine and article 80 of the UN Charter – following the decisions of the San Remo Conference and the signing of the Treaty of Sevres.
Former Secretary General Kofi Annan amazingly failed to include any mention of the Mandate and article 80 in his brief delivered to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2003 seeking its advisory opinion on the legality of part of Israel’s security fence being erected in the West Bank.
The ICJ’s subsequent failure to consider the effect of the Mandate and article 80 still needs to be explained – especially as one of the Presiding Judges warned that such an examination was necessary.
UNESCO maintains that Palestine is a State – when it clearly fails to comply with the requirements of the Montevideo Convention 1933.
Now Mr Falk – writing recently on his blog page – adds further fuel to the fire:
“I regard the Balfour Declaration and the mandatory system as classic colonial moves that have lost whatever legitimacy that they possessed at the time of their utterance, and prefer to view the competing claims to land and rights on the basis either of the 1948 partition proposal or the 1967 boundaries, although if there was diplomatic parity, I would respect whatever accommodation the parties reached, but without such parity, it seems necessary to invoke the allocation of rights as per settled international law.”
Mr Falk was parroting what had first appeared in Article 18 of the PLO Charter in 1964:
“The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate system and all that has been based on them are considered fraud.”
But even the PLO was forced to change that viewpoint just four years later – when it recognized that if the Mandate system was a fraud, then the Mandates for Syria and Lebanon and Mesopotamia – which had delivered self determination to the Arabs in 99.999% of the captured Ottoman territory – could also be subject to challenge.
With some crafty draughtsmanship – Article 18 was replaced in 1968 with the following Article 20 in the redrafted Charter:
“The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine and everything that has been based on them is null and void”
In response to Mr Falk’s remarks – I asked him:
“The mandatory system delivered self determination to the Arabs as well as the Jews. When did the League of Nations mandate lose its legitimacy as settled international law?
Are both Jordan and Israel illegitimate?
Is article 80 of the UN Charter not settled international law?
The partition proposal was in 1947 – not 1948. It spoke of a Jewish state and an Arab state – not a Palestinian state. There were no 1967 boundaries. Do you agree? “
Mr Falk’s reply was very troubling:
“Churchill was a notorious advocate of colonialism and possessed a colonial mentality, persisting after World War II. I think it is not in Israel’s current interest to argue the historical case for its original claim of statehood.
A more compelling ground would be to work toward peace and reconciliation premised on the 1967 realities. To keep moving the goal posts, ‘fact on the ground’ after 1967, is equally doomed if a sustainable peace is our shared goal.”
Suddenly everything was to now be forgotten in Mr Falk’s opinion before “the 1967 realities”.
The penny suddenly dropped as I commented :
“I now am beginning to understand why you don’t want to have anything to do with the Mandate and article 80 of the UN Charter or what happened between 1920-1948.. The inconvenient truth of the Jewish people’s struggle to assert its legal claim to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in Palestine during those 28 years totally undercuts and dismisses those who would deny the Jews any legal or moral rights in their ancient and biblical homeland.
Now you even go further in wanting to forget 1948-1967 as well – when you state:
“I think it is not in Israel’s current interest to argue the historical case for its original claim of statehood. A more compelling ground would be to work toward peace and reconciliation premised on the 1967 realities.”
Israel’s case is not only historical – it is legal – sanctioned by the League of Nations and the United Nations. Why do you continually seek to deny the existence of these vested Jewish legal rights?
Mr Falk then proceeded to change tack yet again in stating:
“Your reliance on the Balfour Declaration, UN partition proposals, etc., is one, but only one, construction of international law. There are competing constructions that do not regard as any longer valid all acts based on colonialist authority. My own view because of these contradictory lines of historical authority is to start from the present reality to sort out the respective claims of both peoples according to the logic of self-determination, an approach that will never satisfy extremists on either side, but has the best chance of achieving a sustainable peace.”
Suddenly the “ realities of 1967” mentioned as a starting point just a few days earlier had disappeared into the blue yonder to be replaced by “the present reality” as the new starting point.
Both puzzled and bemused I was motivated to ask Mr Falk:
“Which of the “contradictory lines of historical authority” do you personally accept?
1. the PLO position that regards the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate and everything that resulted from it to be null and void.
OR
2. The Zionist position that accepts the Mandate to have been a proper exercise of the League of Nations sovereign power to confer on Great Britain
With respect this is the third time you have changed your starting date:
1. You originally said 1948 or 1967
2. You then said 1967
3. You now state – “the present reality”
Won’t any of these starting points still involve sorting out the respective claims of both parties to self determination based on what happened between at least 1917-2012 and what happened to the territory once called Palestine during that period?”
I am still waiting for an answer from Mr Falk.
Turning historical facts and established international law on its head in favour of a fake and forged PLO narrative can only exacerbate – not help resolve – the 130 years old conflict between Arabs and Jews.
David Singer is a Sydney Lawyer and Foundation Member of the International Analysts Network
David,
I have read fully the Richard Falk blog on Dani Dayan. I have posted a number of comments to contributors and a final comment to Falk himself, as this particular site has generated extreme anti-Semitism and degenerated into discussion motivated by hate and malice. You might be interested to view my comments on the site, spread throughout.
David,
I have read the Richard Falk blog site involving the subject of Dani Dayan. I have posted some comments addressing three contributors as well as Falk himself. You are right about the Jew-hating nature of some of the posts. It’s also my opinion that a couple of the contributors in particular are Jew-baiters, in that they wish to attract Jewish contributors with different views to theirs in order to play malicious games with them. For that reason I won’t be participating any more than I have already. It is, however, more than necessary to expose these posts for what they are, which is what you have done. You might like to consider my comments. I shall always do my best to expose and fight against the kind of comments and scenario that has developed on this site.
David,
Thank you for the access links to further articles/comments in relation to Richard Falk. I have posted a comment myself on the ‘Palestinian hunger strikes’ article, and have yet to look at the Dani Dayan piece, but shall do so.
Richard Falk’s ‘reasoning’ is breathtaking for its subjectivity and fantastical notions. He actually refers to what he ‘prefers’ in regard to how he views ‘competing land rights’, and part of his preference involves completely disregarding the legal situation that actually exists apropos the Mandate for Palestine and Article 80 of the UN Charter. What an interesting world it would be if we as individuals could decide to accept or forego, as our inclination dictated, what is law and what is not.
Then we have Ben following on with his particular fiction. He even has the last word on the national identity of the Jewish people, insofar as he denies there is one! Ben, it can be useful to ask questions: ask yourself why so many Jews lived in so many lands for so long – if you don’t know the answer to this, do some research.
Liat
If you want to get some further lowdown on Richard Falk and his thought processes then look at
http://richardfalk.wordpress.com/2012/08/19/palestinian-hunger-strikes-why-still-invisible/#comment-8900
and the comments posted there.
Also look at the following article and the comments posted after it.
http://richardfalk.wordpress.com/2012/07/27/what-dani-dayan-says-and-why-it-is-interesting/#comment-8799
Hello david Singer
I asked for evidence of the claim of the supposed “common homeland”. The mandate was essentailly a continuation of colonisation under a new garb and it was opposed by the Palestinians, whose struggle against the mandat rule was brutally suppressed by the British with Zionist collaboration.
My question wa ” How do a diverse group of people spread over at least four different African, Asian and European region constitte a common nation , and more importantly how do you “re-constitute the homeland”, of several national groups ?
The League of nations merely continued the Sykes Picot arrangement and neither the Palestinians not the Arabs had a say in the imposition of the mandatory rule or the Balfour declaration.
Ben
Read what happened to the Jews after they were kicked out of their homeland by the Romans and their country Eretz Yisrael was renamed “Palestina ”
You might learn something if you read
http://www.livius.org/ja-jn/jewish_wars/jwar03.html
Ben
You state:
“”Reconstituting the Jewish homeland” is a myth pure and simple. The only deed to this is the Balfour Declaration….”
Have you heard of the Mandate for Palestine and are you aware of the following provisions in it endorsed by all 51 countries of the League of Nations:
“Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;”
“The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”
I really find it hard to understand why you continually wish to put your gross ignorance on public display.
A piece of fictional history by David Singer. “Reconsituting the Jewish homeland” is a myth pure and simple. The only deed to this is the Balfour declaration issued by imperial Britain making a vague promise not to another state but to Rothschild, promising a “homeland” in a territory not its own and ignoring the rights of the indegenous people and without their consent.
The Jews are not a homogenous or single national entity – they range from Morrocan Berbers to Algerians, Libyans, Egyptians, Ethiopians, Iraqis, Iranians, Yemeni, Indian, Chinese, Russians, Poles, Hungarians, Germans, Spanish and Portuegese. Where do all these diverse people have a “homeland” that can be” reconstituted” ?
If the conferences for settling inter-imperial rivalries between the wars can conjure such a “homeland” , David Singer is welcome to quote the articles.