As we delve into the legal dimension of the issue, it’s important to recognize the historical backdrop. During the aftermath of the world war, the victorious nations were in the process of formulating a legal framework for their envisioned world order. The legal system established by these Western powers is now recognized as International Law, despite being shaped primarily by one civilization. This system was not truly international in its formation. Under this law, it was decided that world peace should be safeguarded, with the basic principle being that no country would be permitted to occupy and annex another. Over time, the United Nations has continued to uphold this principle, which will be elaborated upon further.
During the war, Zionist leaders adamantly demanded that Britain take over Palestine, declare it British territory, and hand it over to the British Jews. However, this proposal did not materialize because international law had firmly established the principle that no country could acquire another by war and make it its own. When Palestine was taken from the Ottoman Turks by Britain, it did not legally become British territory, nor did it come under British subjugation. This was because international law had already unequivocally prohibited the acquisition of territory through war.
By contrast, when Britain defeated the Mughal Empire in India, this principle was not firmly established, leading to the designation of “British India”. However, when the Ottoman Empire was defeated in Palestine, international law had nullified the concept of occupation, and it was never called as “British Palestine.”
Certainly! Based on international law, when the issue of Palestine was presented to the League of Nations, it was not classified as a possession of Britain. Instead, it was entrusted to the administration of Britain as a “sacred trust” referred to as the Mandate. The distinction between a trust and a possession was not merely semantic. It represented a fundamental legal philosophy asserting that Palestine rightfully belonged to the Palestinians and would ultimately be transferred to them after a period of time. Article 22 of the League of Nations Charter outlined the specific territories formerly under the control of the Ottoman Empire and declared that, due to their inability to adapt to modern circumstances, they would receive administrative guidance under the supervision of the League of Nations. This guidance aimed to assist these territories in becoming independent and sovereign states capable of self-governance. The mandate’s objective, as specified in Article 22, was to facilitate the development of the Palestinian territory and promote the welfare of its people. This responsibility was commonly referred to as the Sacred Trust of Civilization, signifying a solemn obligation held by civilized nations.
The narrative of “civilized nations” greatly influenced the charter of the League of Nations. According to Oppenheim, the renowned “Father of International Law,” international law was seen as being based on the traditional codes of “civilized” states, implying an arrangement that included only those countries that had reached a certain level of civilization. The notion was akin to the “White Man’s Burden,” with the belief that it was the responsibility of the civilized white nations to educate the rest of the world about civilization and values. The League of Nations, comprising these “civilized nations,” treated Palestine as a sacred trust of civilization, asserting that they had not acquired the territory from the Ottoman Empire through conquest, but were managing it as a trust until the Palestinians were “civilized” enough to govern themselves. This approach reflected a paternalistic viewpoint, suggesting that the civilized nations were now safeguarding Palestine until the Palestinians could independently manage their own affairs. It’s worth noting that at the time of the League of Nations, no Muslim country was a member, and the San Remo conference was primarily composed of white nobles who upheld the ideals of the “White Man’s Burden.”
At the time when this mandate was being introduced in Palestine, there was naturally anxiety among the Muslims of India. In response, the British government announced that this mandate was for a special purpose and would only be temporary.
The narrative of “civilized nations” greatly influenced the charter of the League of Nations. According to Oppenheim, the renowned “Father of International Law,” international law was seen as being based on the traditional codes of “civilized” states, implying an arrangement that included only those countries that had reached a certain level of civilization. The notion was akin to the “White Man’s Burden,” with the belief that it was the responsibility of the civilized white nations to educate the rest of the world about civilization and values. The League of Nations, comprising these “civilized nations,” treated Palestine as a sacred trust of civilization, asserting that they had not acquired the territory from the Ottoman Empire through conquest, but were managing it as a trust until the Palestinians were “civilized” enough to govern themselves. This approach reflected a paternalistic viewpoint, suggesting that the civilized nations were now safeguarding Palestine until the Palestinians could independently manage their own affairs. It’s worth noting that at the time of the League of Nations, no Muslim country was a member, and the San Remo conference was primarily composed of white nobles who upheld the ideals of the “White Man’s Burden.”
At the time when this mandate was being introduced in Palestine, there was naturally anxiety among the Muslims of India. In response, the British government announced that this mandate was for a special purpose and would only be temporary.
( to be continued)
