Talk:Mandate for Palestine

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 May 2024

"This would, according to professor of modern Jewish history Bernard Wasserstein, result in "the myth of Palestine's 'first partition' [which became] part of the concept of 'Greater Israel' and of the ideology of Jabotinsky's Revisionist movement".[ii][iii]"

Suggested change: note [iii] is not by author Wassertein, i.e., is not a note for this sentence. Suggest to cross out.

"Palestinian-American academic Ibrahim Abu-Lughod, then chair of the Northwestern University political science department, suggested that the "Jordan as a Palestinian State" references made by Israeli spokespeople may reflect "the same [mis]understanding".[iv][188]"

Suggested change: "Reflecting upon a much later development, Palestinian-American academic Ibrahim Abu-Lughod suggested that the "Jordan as a Palestinian State" references made by Israeli spokespeople may reflect "the same [mis]understanding".[iv][188]" I crossed out the "then chair" because it is not relevant and also because it gives the impression that the scholar was chair during the Mandate times.

Other alternative: cross out the above sentence completely as it is not related to the British Mandate for Palestine, only to possible later consequences of the British Mandate for Palestine. There are numerous consequences of the British Mandate and I see no reason to pick one up randomly and insert in this entry. HeloPait (talk) 10:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 03:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Transjordan as part of mandatory Palestine

The caption of the map states that "Transjordan was never part of Mandatory Palestine" yet a source used for this seems to directly contradict, or at least strongly weaken, that claim: "Palestine, therefore, was not partitioned in 1921–1922. Transjordan was not excised but, on the contrary, added to the mandatory area." Another source makes a conspiratorial claim that "A series of advertisements that appeared in major American newspapers in the course of 1983 claimed openly that Jordan is Palestine. The series was presumably paid for by 'private' sponsors who support Israel but have been reported to be acting on behalf of certain sectors of Israel's leadership." On the other hand, these areas were administered by the same commissioners: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_high_commissioners_for_Palestine_and_Transjordan 2601:1C2:C082:6CE0:954:7F92:13F2:DE01 (talk) 07:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

"...added to the mandatory area..." but not "Mandatory Palestine". It is explained at Mandate for Palestine#Addition of Transjordan and Emirate of Transjordan#Relationship with Palestine. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Better to insist that non EC editors make edit requests and not engage in argumentation, the latest of which I have reverted. Selfstudier (talk) 10:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, particularly since the reverted comment contained unacceptable weaponization of antisemitism.

Selfstudier, do you have a view as to whether the map caption words "Transjordan was never part of Mandatory Palestine" can be tightened up to reflect the concern raised? We all know what it means, and it is clearly accurate, but it strikes me as a fair point that the words "Mandatory Palestine" may have a small amount of ambiguity when read out of context. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it is fine, the problem arises only when one fails to study the material properly and as in this case, are anyway disposed to argufy. Selfstudier (talk) 12:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)