The U.N. cannot create states, it can only recommend by YJ Draiman

The U.N. cannot create states, it can only recommend and so can other nations only recommend and not create a state that never existed before in history. If they want an Arab-Palestinian
state, it already exists, it is Jordan which has taken 80% of Jewish allocated land.

In 1947, the UN Gen. Assembly passed Resolution 181 recommending the partition of Palestine. This did not create the State of Israel. The General Assembly does not create countries, make laws, or alter the Mandates (Mandates were a big brother system for setting up independent countries to be led by its native populations, with historic national connections to the territories. The Jewish people 4,000 year history to the land of Israel. In Jewish prayers the aspirations to rebuilt Jerusalem is recited 3 times a day). The Partition plan, was merely a recommendation. The resolution also violated Article 5 of the Mandate for Palestine and therefore it also violated Article 80 of the UN
Charter. It was therefore an illegal resolution. What we call the State of Israel, along with her "legal" borders, was established in April 1920 with the San Remo Resolution which adopted the Balfour declaration and was confirmed by the 1920 Treaty of Sevres and Lausanne. Palestine was created for the first time in history as a country. It was created as the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home. The Partition Plan in 1947 was the result of a 1/4 century of illegal British policy that ripped internationally protected Jewish rights from the Jewish People, as the British allowed hundreds of thousands of Arabs to pour across the border from Syria and Egypt into Palestine. The Jewish State's reconstitution was a fact 25 years before the UN existed. The Mandate was there to protect its
survival. which the British violated again and again, and it was terminated, not because the terms were completed, but because the British fled with their tails between their legs, and there was no
one there to administer the Mandate.

It is time to implement population transfer for all the Arabs. (Just like was done after WW2) for those who promote and create violence, riot and attack Jews and anyone else. They could be relocated to the homes and land (120,440 sq. km.) of the million Jewish families and their children, persecuted and expelled from Arab countries or can relocate to Jordan which is 75% Arab-Palestinians. (Arabs in the West Bank aka Judea and Samaria carry Jordanian Passports).

YJ Draiman.

Contents:

Jewish Rights to Palestine-Israel Were Internationally Guaranteed

In the first Report of the High Commissioner on the Administration of Palestine (1920-1925) presented to the British Secretary of State for the Colonies, published in April 1925, the most senior official of the Mandate, the High Commissioner for Palestine, underscored how international guarantees for the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine were achieved:

“The [Balfour] Declaration was endorsed at the time by several of the Allied Governments; it was reaffirmed by the Conference of the Principal Allied Powers at San Remo in 1920; it was subsequently endorsed by unanimous resolutions of both Houses of the Congress of the United States; it was embodied in the Mandate for Palestine approved by the League of Nations in 1922; it was declared, in a formal statement of policy issued by the Colonial Secretary in the same year, ‘not to be susceptible of change.’ ” 

Far from the whim of this or that politician or party, eleven successive British governments, Labor and Conservative, from David Lloyd George (1916-1922) through Clement Attlee (1945-1952) viewed themselves as duty-bound to fulfill the “Mandate for Palestine” placed in the hands of Great Britain by the League of Nations.

Jerusalem in “Mandate” Time

Two distinct issues exist: the issue of Jerusalem and the issue of the Holy Places.

Cambridge Professor Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, Judge ad hoc of the International Court of Justice and a renowned editor of one of the ‘bibles’ of international law, International Law Reports has said:

“Not only are the two problems separate; they are also quite distinct in nature from one another. So far as the Holy Places are concerned, the question is for the most part one of assuring respect for the existing interests of the three religions and of providing the necessary guarantees of freedom of access, worship, and religious administration [E.H., as mandated in Article 13 and 14 of the “Mandate for Palestine”] … As far as the City of Jerusalem itself is concerned, the question is one of establishing an effective administration of the City which can protect the rights of the various elements of its permanent population - Christian, Arab and Jewish - and ensure the governmental stability and physical security which are essential requirements for the city of the Holy Places.”

The notion of internationalizing Jerusalem was never part of the “Mandate”:

“Nothing was said in the Mandate about the internationalization of Jerusalem. Indeed Jerusalem as such is not mentioned – though the Holy Places are. And this in itself is a fact of relevance now. For it shows that in 1922 there was no inclination to identify the question of the Holy Places with that of the internationalization of Jerusalem.”

Jerusalem the spiritual, political, and historical capital of the Jewish people has served, and still serves, as the political capital of only one nation – the one belonging to the Jewish people.

Jerusalem, a city in Palestine, was and is an undisputed part of the Jewish National Home.

Political Rights in Palestine Were Granted to Jews Only

The “Mandate for Palestine” clearly differentiates between political rights – referring to Jewish self-determination as an emerging polity – and civil and religious rights, referring to guarantees of equal personal freedoms to non-Jewish residents as individuals and within select communities. Not once are Arabs as a people mentioned in the “Mandate for Palestine.” At no point in the entire document is there any granting of political rights to non-Jewish entities (i.e., Arabs). Article 2 of the “Mandate for Palestine” explicitly states that the Mandatory should:

“... 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.”

Political rights to self-determination as a polity for Arabs were guaranteed by the League of Nations in four other mandates – in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and later Trans-Jordan [today Jordan].

International law expert Professor Eugene V. Rostow, examining the claim for Arab Palestinian self-determination on the basis of law, concluded:

“… the mandate implicitly denies Arab claims to national political rights in the area in favor of the Jews; the mandated territory was in effect reserved to the Jewish people for their self-determination and political development, in acknowledgment of the historic connection of the Jewish people to the land. Lord Curzon, who was then the British Foreign Minister, made this reading of the mandate explicit. There remains simply the theory that the Arab inhabitants of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have an inherent ‘natural law’ claim to the area. Neither customary international law nor the United Nations Charter acknowledges that every group of people claiming to be a nation has the right to a state of its own.” [italics by author]

http://www.mythsandfacts.org/conflict/mandate_for_palestine/mandate_for_palestine.htm