39 Fall 2025 It is thus without doubt that the territorial scope of the Mandate, in which the Jewish national home was to be established, encompassed all of the area west of the Jordan river, including the present-day West Bank. 5. The Mandate years – the terms and obligations of the Mandate remain unchanged Throughout the period during which Britain served as the Mandatory no changes were made to the Terms of the Mandate. The entire territory west of the Jordan river remained part of the original Mandate, and the Mandatory remained charged with working towards the establishment of the Jewish national home therein. Nevertheless, in the face of Arab pressure and violence, and due to British interests locally and abroad, the British imposed policy restrictions on Jewish immigration, settlement, and purchase of land. Despite these restrictions, Jewish communities were spread across the entire Mandatory territory throughout the Mandate period. In the West Bank area, Jewish communities resided in Hebron (except for a few years after the massacre of the Jewish residents in 1929) and in the Dead Sea area, Jewish communities and agricultural industries operated in the Gush Etzion area, and, of course, Jewish communities maintained a constant presence in Jerusalem, including in the Old City.163 Eventually, the United Kingdom sought to end the Mandate. In a series of commissions and policy positions, the British proposed different – and novel – solutions, including dividing the territory into two states (one Jewish and one Arab), formalizing British control over areas of importance to British interests (such as ports), and proposing unique internationally-governed systems for the Jerusalem and Bethlehem areas due to their communal religious importance.164 Ultimately, all of the British proposals were rejected by either of, or both, the Jewish and Arab communities, and the terms and obligations of the Mandate remained unchanged. 6. The continuation of the Mandate following the establishment of the United Nations and the rejection of the General Assembly partition plan The creation of the United Nations in 1945 did nothing to change the Jewish people’s rights in the Land of Israel or the legal validity or continuity of the Mandate over Palestine. While the UN Charter introduced a new “trusteeship system”, tasking the UN with supervising the administration of non-self-governing territories, the trusteeship system did not automatically replace mandate governance. Article 80 of the UN Charter states that nothing in the Charter shall “alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples” or alter “the terms of existing international instruments” [emphases added] to which UN member states are parties, unless agreed otherwise 162. For an overview of the British political considerations in its policy changes concerning Palestine and Arab rights, see ZIPPERSTEIN, ZIONISM, PALESTINIAN NATIONALISM AND THE LAW: 1939-1948, Ch. 4, 6 (Routledge, 2021), and ZIPPERSTEIN, supra note 25, Ch. 5. 163. SABEL, supra note 21, at 295. 164. For example, the Peel Commission proposed creating Jewish and Arab states without detailing their borders (suggesting that each state’s territory be based on population concentrations), alongside an enclave comprising of Jerusalem and the Bethlehem surroundings under a new international mandate. Subsequent policy papers and commissions rejected this proposal; for example, the Statement of Policy by the British Government on 9 November 1938 stated that “the political, administrative and financial difficulties involved in the proposal to create independent Arab and Jewish States inside Palestine are so great that this solution of the problem is impracticable,” and decided that the British Government would continue their responsibility for the government of the whole of Palestine. Subsequent commissions found that dividing the Mandatory territory violated the Terms of the Mandate and Britain’s obligations thereunder. See Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry Report to the United States Government and His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom regarding the problems of European Jewry and Palestine c. X ¶ 3 (1946), https:// ecf.org.il/media_items/307.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=