IF there was a Palestine after the Mandate ended, then why did the Palestinian declare independence in 1988 ?P F Tinmore, et al,
This is a shell-game of absolutely no consequence. You are trying to suggest that the name of a country must match the name of the territory under which the Mandate applied. That would be incorrect. You are also implying that there was a separate mandate for Trans-Jordanian, which there was not.
Lastly, both the mandates contain a special clause providing that, on the termination of the mandatory regime, it will be incumbent on the Council of the League of Nations to use its influence to ensure that financial obligations legitimately incurred by the Administration of the countries in question during the period of the mandate are henceforward duly honoured.
The Mandate for Syria and Lebanon contains a special provision to the effect that the Mandatory is to frame for these countries an organic law taking into account the rights, interests and wishes of all their populations and that he is to facilitate the progressive development of the two countries as independent States. French and Arabic are the official languages of Syria and Lebanon. The Mandatory is to encourage public education, which is to be given through the medium of the native languages in use in the territories of Syria and Lebanon.
In the Mandate for Syria and Lebanon, the Article establishing the principle of economic equality contains clauses similar to those included in the "B" Mandates (see page 26) with regard to concessions and monopolies.
The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917. By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. The Mandate reproduces the Balfour Declaration almost in full in its preamble and states that "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". SOURCE: The Mandate System LoN/1945.VI.A.1 30 April 1945
(CLARIFICATION)Under normal circumstances it is not an issue. The Lebanese declared independence in Lebanon. No land transfer was necessary. The Syrians declared independence in Syria. No land transfer was necessary. The Jordanians declared independence in Jordan No land transfer was necessary.
Israel declared independence in Palestine.
Do you see a difference?
Point #1:
This position was understood from 1922 through 1946; when the territory was reduced by 77% - when the provisional government of Trans-Jordania was granted full independence. Thereafter, Palestine referred to the remaining 23% of the territory (not provisionally recognized).
Held at Geneva from July 1st to 19th said:M. ORTS quoted the end of the declaration of Lord Cushendun:
"There should be no doubt at all in the minds of the members of the Council that my Government regards itself as responsible to the Council for the proper application in Trans-Jordan of all the provisions of the Palestine mandate, except those which have been excluded under Article 25." SOURCE: League of Nations 19 JULY 29
Point #2:
Israel did not declare independence "in Palestine." The Jewish declare Independence over the allocated portion of the remaining territory territory to which the former Mandate of Palestine applied. In 1946, approximately 77% of the territory to which the Mandate applied, was granted independence:
(COMMENT)EXCERPT: No. 74. TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN HIS MAJESTY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND HIS HIGHNESS THE AMIR OF TRANSJORDAN. SIGNED AT LONDON said:His Majesty The King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the seas, Emperor of India, and His Highness The Amir of Trans-Jordan; Who, having communicated their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows:
Article I
His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof. SOURCE: Page 144 UN Treaty Series 1947
Making of Transjordan said:On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan. In exchange for providing military facilities within Transjordan, Britain continued to pay a financial subsidy and supported the Arab Legion. Two months later, on May 25, 1946, the Transjordanian parliament proclaimed Abdullah king, while officially changing the name of the country from the Emirate of Transjordan to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
The Tinmore Question: Do you see a difference?
The territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine; originally included the provisionally recognized independence of Trans-Jordan. Lebanon, Syria and Jordan were all declared independent on territories relative to the respective areas covered by the appropriate Mandate. When the people of a territory declare independence, it does not matter what name they choose for their country (less duplicates).
- ANSWER: Yes, I understand your question. And you don't understand the difference.
You logic is neither sound nor valid.
Most Respectfully,
RYou are trying to suggest that the name of a country must match the name of the territory under which the Mandate applied.
No. I am matching the people to their place.