By Alan D. Miller
A Question:
If the British didn't have either de jure or de facto control of the Holy Land when they issued the Balfour Declaration, then isn't it true that they didn't have a legitimate authority to make a pledge of the Holy land as a "Jewish National Home"? [submitted by John from Queens, New York]
An Answer:
The Balfour Declaration loses no legitimacy from the fact that the British were not in control of Palestine on the date of its issuance.
The British had no authority to create a Jewish National Home in land they did not possess, nor did they claim such authority with the issuance of the Balfour Declaration. They simply made a statement of policy, not dissimilar from a campaign promise. The Balfour Declaration was not a legally binding document.
After the end of the First World War, the League of Nations took up the question of Palestine. The League did not to give the British ownership of Palestine, and consequently, the British never gained authority to give the land away to anyone else. That authority rested with the League of Nations. The League decided to create a mandate which would be administered by a foreign power until the territory was ready for self-rule.
The Council of the League of Nations decided that the policy embodied in the Balfour Declaration was a good one, and that a Jewish national home should be created in Palestine. To further that aim, the Balfour Declaration was incorporated into the mandate's preamble. The League gave the British the responsibility for administering the territory, as laid out in Article 2 of the Mandate for Palestine. "The Mandatory shall 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."
The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, and not the Balfour Declaration, was the basis under international law for the creation of the State of Israel.
By Alan D. Miller
There is an interesting opinion column in the Jerusalem Post, discussing the international condemnation Israel received after the capture of Adolf Eichmann in 1960. While I was aware that the capture led to a diplomatic incident, I did not know that U.N. Security Council Resolution 138 (1960) requested that the Government of Israel make reparations for transferring Eichmann without Argentina's consent. The United States, Britain, France, China, Ecuador, Ceylon, Italy, and Tunisia voted for the resolution. The Soviet Union and Poland abstained. Argentina did not take part in the voting. Israel made the reparations in the form of a formal apology, as envisioned by the American Ambassador to the United Nations, Henry Cabot Lodge.
Israel's actions were probably against international law, specifically, against Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. States may not go into countries and kidnap criminals that they wish to put on trial, even if the trial be a fair one. That is what extradition treaties are for. (For a contrary view, see United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992).) But given the enormity of Eichmann's crimes, I found it amazing that Argentina raised this to the level of a diplomatic incident. They would have been better off if they had kept quiet. Instead, they essentially told the entire world that they had sheltered Eichmann.
Potential violations of international law aside, it seem fairly clear that Israel's actions have made the world a better place. Potential mass murderers will be deterred by the realization that even a friendly government may not be able to protect them from justice. Eichmann should not have been allowed to go free. Ben-Gurion recognized this and acted appropriately.
By Alan D. Miller
I saw the press conference following Sadaam Hussein's capture. Paul Bremer's first words were fairly memorable. "We got him." Bremer appeared with a few others, including Dr. Adnan Pachachi of the Iraqi Governing Council. Unfortunately, ABC wasn't able to translate most of Dr. Pachachi's remarks. For more information about Dr. Pachachi, see my earlier post.
