That statement, as many others that the American President has uttered, resulted in a lot of comment, both pro and con. But it should not be surprising. It is a simple recognition of Israeli rights that ought to have been affirmed long ago. I mentioned this here on my blog back in December. I’m repeating it now. The League of Nations original mandate specified ALL of Palestine would be a future Jewish state. At the time, that mandate also included all of what is now the Kingdom of Jordan. International politics caused a number of changes. The British efforts to reward Shereef Hussein for supporting them during the First World War included putting one his sons on the throne of an Iraqi kingdom. It was carved out of one of the former possessions of the Turkish Empire. The local Iraqi population objected to being made subservient to yet another (for them) foreign ruler. The British response was to split the Palestine mandate in two.The Eastern half became a new kingdom for Husseins son. The western part remained dedicated to becoming a national home for Jews. Check the wording of the original mandate document.
The British also made other border adjustments, and they did so without the approval, or even consideration, of the League of Nations. Those actions were taken despite the terms of the mandate requiring the mandatory power (Britain) to bring any such changes before the league for approval. Specifically, the changes included ceding the entire Golan heights to the then French Syrian mandate. Those actions were unilateral, and in today’s terms, illegal. So when any Arab nation or organization starts calling Trumps declarations contrary to international law it simply shows how ignorant they are of the history of the region. Of course, when Arab nations start invoking “international law” it usually means that they lack the power or influence to make changes by themselves. They want some other countries to step in and do the dirty work for them. It’s quite a contrast to their response to the United Nations resolution that initiated the creation of Israel. In 1948, following the British withdrawal, several Arab countries sent armed forces to conquer the newly established state of Israel. It was opposition to Israel, not the creation of a parallel Arab Palestine, that motivated them. I should also note that their attempt to seize territory by force in 1948 was also contrary to “international law”. The cease-fire agreements that ended that conflict in 1949 all called for some kind of future negotiations to establish a more lasting peace. Egypt and Jordan have done so. Syria and Lebanon (and Iraq) have not. A self governing Palestinian authority did not exist then, Now that it does, it remains attached to a call for the destruction of Israel, rather than to negotiate a true peace agreement. Iran, under the Ayatollahs, has joined that call. The Psychiatrists call people who reject reality delusional. I wonder if that term is applicable to counties as well?
Wetherhorn 