The Case Against Palestinian National Rights under International Law

 The Palestinian national rights issue has dominated global diplomacy for decades, heavily influencing Middle Eastern politics and United Nations policies. However, Professor Abraham A. Sion's groundbreaking work, To Whom Was the Promised Land Promised? Some Fundamental Truths About the Arab-Israeli Conflict presents a powerful legal challenge to the claim of Palestinian national rights over Mandatory Palestine. Drawing on historical documents and foundational legal agreements, he presents a provocative argument: Palestinian national claims lack a legitimate foundation under international law. This view calls for re-evaluating current assumptions and an informed discourse based on legal precedents rather than political trends.

A Legal Perspective on National Claims

Abraham Sion's scrutiny instigates an evaluation of the 20th-century treaties and declarations that formed the legal structure of the modern Middle East. He uses documents like the Balfour Declaration (1917), the San Remo Resolution (1920), and the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine as the foundation of his claims, which, he asserts, codified the territory as a Jewish National Home. The author argues that all of these documents promised legal rights only limited to the Jewish people, offering no room for a Palestinian Arab state or national identity. Therefore, Palestinian national rights represent a withdrawal from the original framework that became the region's foundation.

Examining the McMahon-Hussein Pledge and British Promises to the Arabs

The McMahon-Hussein Correspondence (1915) is a primary document supporting Palestinian claims. It highlights the British promise of independence to the Arab nations in exchange for their support against the Ottoman Empire in World War I. Abraham Sion, however, points out that these exchanges excluded Palestine. He argues that this omission is legally significant, as it reinforces the absence of any direct promise of national rights to the Palestinian Arabs. Additionally, while certain communications (like the Anglo-French Declaration of 1918) suggested support for Arab self-governance, they did not assign sovereign national rights over Palestine.

The Mandate for Palestine: A Unique Legal Instrument

Unlike other mandates established in the Middle East, the Mandate for Palestine explicitly designated the land as a National Home for the Jewish people, affirming Jewish historical ties to the region. The Mandate called for establishing civil and religious rights for all residents but did not extend national political rights to the Arab population. This distinction is critical, Sion argues, as it reflects the international community's clear intent to create a Jewish homeland while ensuring the protection of minority rights. This structure established a legal precedent favoring Jewish national claims without implying Palestinian nationhood within the territory.

The Impact of Article 80 of the UN Charter

Following the League of Nations dissolution, Article 80 of the United Nations Charter preserved the rights and arrangements established under existing international mandates. This article is crucial to Sion's case, as it implies that the Jewish legal rights to the land, as outlined in the Mandate for Palestine, remain intact under international law. Thus, he argues that subsequent attempts to redefine the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem as Palestinian territories lack legal backing. By disregarding Article 80, the international community overlooks a foundational pillar of international law in the Middle East.

General Assembly Resolutions: Political Statements, Not Legal Foundations

A central aspect of the argument against Palestinian national rights is that United Nations General Assembly resolutions, often cited to support Palestinian statehood, are non-binding. The author highlights the 1947 Partition Plan (Resolution 181), which proposed a two-state solution as a recommendation—not a legally binding decision. Though the Jewish representatives accepted the plan, the Arab nations rejected it outrightly, initiating a conflict that resulted in new territorial boundaries following Israel's War of Independence. In Sion's view, the Palestinian rejection effectively nullified the Partition Plan's recommendations, stripping them of any standing under international law.

The Question of "Occupied Palestinian Territory"

Since the Six-Day War of 1967, global political discourse has referred to Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza as "Occupied Palestinian Territory," primarily based on United Nations resolutions. However, Sion highlights a crucial inconsistency: these areas have never been part of a sovereign Palestinian state. Before Israeli control, the West Bank was under Jordanian rule and Gaza under Egyptian administration, with neither claiming sovereign rights. This history, Sion argues, invalidates the notion of "occupation" as it is commonly applied, as there is no precedent for Palestinian national sovereignty over these areas in any international treaty.

Rethinking International Law in the Arab-Israeli Conflict

Professor Sion's argument calls for realigning the Arab-Israeli conflict's legal discourse with the original international agreements establishing territorial rights. He contends that revisiting these documents could correct longstanding misconceptions and foster a more balanced understanding of legitimate national claims in the region. By emphasizing historical treaties and the specificity of the Mandate for Palestine, Sion presents a compelling case against the assumption of Palestinian national rights as they are commonly understood today.

This perspective does not refute Palestinian demands for autonomy or political agency; instead, it challenges the presumption of a pre-existing national claim under international law. In doing so, Sion's work, To Whom Was The Promised Land Promised?: Some Fundamental Truths About The Arab-Israeli Conflict invites the international community to re-evaluate the Arab-Israeli conflict's legal framework, potentially opening new avenues for peaceful and legally grounded solutions.

Get your copy today. The book is available on Amazon.