United Nations web of deceit snares International Court of Justice

May 10, 2017 by David Singer
Read on for article

The United Nations publication “The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem 1917-1988” (“Study”) has falsely misrepresented that the Mandate for Palestine was a class A Mandate – deceiving the International Court of Justice and many other reputable sources…writes David Singer.The Study has been  published  by the Division for Palestinian Rights of the United Nations Secretariat for, and under the guidance of, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People.

The Study falsely asserts without substantiation:

 “All the mandates over Arab countries, including Palestine, were treated as class ‘A’ Mandates, applicable to territories whose independence had been provisionally recognised in the Covenant of the League of Nations”.

 The Study then erroneously concludes:

“Only in the case of Palestine did the Mandate, with its inherent contradictions, lead not to the independence provisionally recognised in the Covenant, but towards conflict that was to continue six decades later.”

However the 1937 Peel Commission Report comprehensively debunks the Study’s concocted claims:

“The Mandate [for Palestine] is of a different type from the Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon and the draft Mandate for Iraq. These latter, which were called for convenience “A” Mandates, accorded with the fourth paragraph of Article 22. Thus the Syrian Mandate provided that the government should be based on an organic law which should take into account the rights, interests and wishes of all the inhabitants, and that measures should be enacted ‘to facilitate the progressive development of Syria and the Lebanon as independent States.’ The corresponding sentences of the draft Mandate for Iraq were the same. In compliance with them National Legislatures were established in due course on an elective basis. Article 1 of the Palestine Mandate, on the other hand, vests ‘full powers of legislation and of administration,’ within the limits of the Mandate, in the Mandatory.”

 The Study for reasons unknown completely ignores this detailed Peel Commission rebuttal.

The Study’s unchallenged statements –  seemingly authentic bearing United Nations imprimatur – appear on many websites including:

  1. The Rights Forum – which claims to strive for a rights-based policy of the Netherlands and the European Union with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On 10 December 2009, the International Day of Human Rights, The Rights Forum was launched by its Chairman former Dutch Prime Minister Andreas van Agt – assisted by an Advisory Council of former Ministers and Professors in International Law.
  2. The Global Education Project – which states it adheres to rigorous standards and strives for an impartial and comprehensive presentation of the most relevant information necessary for both accurate and adequate education.
  3. ProCon.org – which asserts it is America’s leading source for non-partisan information and civic education – serving more than 25 million people each year including teachers and students in more than 9000 schools in all 50 states and 90 foreign countries. It claims that 34 US state governments,17 US state Departments of Education, 23 foreign governments and 22 US federal agencies have cited ProCon.org materials.

A large number of anti-Israel sites and books have also embraced these Study’s false claims.

However the biggest fish snared in the Study’s web of deceit is the United Nations own primary judicial branch  – the International Court of Justice – which In paragraph 70 of  its  Advisory Opinion of July 9, 2004 stated:

“Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. At the end of the First World War, a class ‘A’ Mandate for Palestine was entrusted to Great Britain by the League of Nations, pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant. …”

The Study’s fabricated narrative has certainly reaped – and continues to reap – huge dishonest dividends.

David Singer is a Sydney Lawyer and Foundation Member of the International Analysts Network

 

 

Comments

4 Responses to “United Nations web of deceit snares International Court of Justice”
  1. Matt McLaughlin says:

    London forbiding any official visit by a Royal says it all. Modrrn Israel does not fullfill Protestantism’s intent for Palestine.

  2. Leon Poddebsky says:

    Will The State of Israel, The World Zionist Organisation and The World Jewish Congress
    organise widespread dissemination of the rebuttal of this outrage?

Speak Your Mind

Comments received without a full name will not be considered
Email addresses are NEVER published!

    Rules on posting comments