Blog

Australia has recognised the state of Palestine, the Israelis are not happy, and 25 US republican senators have threatened us with unspecified consequences.

My understanding of UN Resolution 181, which created Israel in 1947, also created the state of Palestine.

Here’s a summary of 181:

• Partition of Palestine: The resolution recommended ending the British Mandate and dividing Palestine into two independent states:
  • Jewish state (about 55% of the land, including the Negev Desert, Galilee, and coastal plain).
  • Arab state (about 45% of the land, including the hill country, Gaza, and most of the Galilee).
• Jerusalem: To be placed under international administration (corpus separatum) due to its religious significance, governed by the UN.
• Economic Union: The two states and Jerusalem would share a joint economic system, including customs, currency, and transport.
• Implementation: Britain would withdraw, and the plan would take effect no later than 1 October 1948.

Additionally, the ‘British Mandate’ was legally dubious, given that Britain had an agreement with the Arabs stating that if the Arabs assisted the British in defeating the Ottomans during World War I, they would be awarded sovereignty over their territories. The Arabs agreed and played a major role in defeating the Turks, but unknown to them was the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916.

Here’s a summary of the Sykes–Picot Agreement (1916):

• Background: A secret wartime agreement between Britain and France, with the assent of Russia, was negotiated by British diplomat Mark Sykes and French diplomat François Georges-Picot. It was concluded in May 1916 during World War I.
• Purpose: To determine how the Ottoman Empire’s Middle Eastern territories would be divided between the Allied powers after a presumed victory over the Ottomans.
• Main Provisions:
  • France would control southeastern Turkey, northern Iraq (including Mosul), Syria, and Lebanon.
  • Britain would control southern Iraq (including Baghdad and Basra), and areas around the ports of Haifa and Acre in Palestine.
  • Palestine (with its religious importance) would be placed under international administration.
  • In some zones, Britain and France would exercise direct control, while in others they would have “influence” over independent Arab states or confederations.
  • Russia was promised control of Istanbul, the Turkish Straits, and Armenia in a separate arrangement.
• Impact:
  • The agreement contradicted British promises made to Arab leaders (notably the Hussein-McMahon correspondence) about an independent Arab state in return for supporting the Arab Revolt against the Ottomans. (Note, the summary is AI-generated, and as you can see, there’s an error in that it was the Arabs who agreed to support the British in defeating the Ottomans, and not the British supporting the Arabs. Otherwise, it all looks factual.)
  • When the Bolsheviks revealed the agreement in 1917, it sparked outrage among Arabs and eroded trust in the Allied powers.
  • It laid the groundwork for later colonial mandates established by the League of Nations after WWI (e.g., British mandate in Palestine and Iraq, French mandate in Syria and Lebanon).

⚖️ In short: the Sykes–Picot Agreement (1916) was a secret deal dividing up Ottoman lands in the Middle East between Britain and France, shaping the modern map of the region but also planting deep distrust and conflict that persists to this day.

T.E. Lawrence, also known as ‘Lawrence of Arabia,’ multiple times in his book “The Seven Pillars of Wisdom” describes how he felt like a fraud when, whilst knowing about the secret agreement, he nevertheless led Arab troops into battle and saw them fight with exceptional courage, and effectively for nothing.

I think the case could be made that the British and French Mandates were illegal, a breach of contract, and therefore there was no legal basis for the later creation of ‘Israel.’

I don’t know, but were I Arab, I would take it as my legal right and moral duty to resist the invader. Actually, under the ‘Rome Statute,’ I would have that right.

Here’s a summary of how the Rome Statute (the founding treaty of the International Criminal Court, 1998) addresses the forcible transfer of population / settlement in occupied territories:

• Relevant Article:
  • Article 8(2)(b)(viii) defines as a war crime:
    

    “The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory.”

• Meaning:
  • An occupying power is forbidden from moving its own civilians into land it militarily occupies.
  • It is equally forbidden to deport or forcibly transfer the existing population of the occupied territory.
  • This aligns with earlier rules in Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949), which also prohibit settlement activity and population transfer.
• Purpose:
  • To prevent colonisation, demographic change, or displacement of the native population in occupied lands.
  • To protect civilians from being uprooted, dispossessed, or replaced.
• Legal Effect:
  • If individuals (including political or military leaders) are responsible for organising or facilitating such transfers, they may be prosecuted for war crimes before the ICC.

👉 In short: The Rome Statute explicitly criminalises both the transfer of an occupier’s civilians into occupied territory and the forced movement of the local population, treating these actions as war crimes under international law.

So, at the very least, all ‘settlers’ on Palestinian land are illegal, and the locals have a right to use force to remove them. There’s more, UNSC resolution 242 of 1967.

🔹 UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967)

• Passed after the Six-Day War (June 1967).
• Calls for:
  1. “Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.”
  2. Respect for the right of every state in the area to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries.
• Importantly, the English text says “from territories” (not “the territories”), which Israel interpreted as not necessarily all the lands occupied. The French version says “des territoires occupés” (which can mean “from the territories”), fueling a long debate.

As someone with an understanding of the French language, “des territories occupés” unquestionably means “territories that are occupied,” that being all occupied territories. 

Screw the debate. Palestinians have a right to a secure state, and no state has the right to murder their children in the tens of thousands. What Israel is doing is genocide, as they always intended to commit. As for those arrogant US senators, the US needs Australia, and we can find new friends elsewhere.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

There’s not much to say about today’s demo other than the numbers are down. A thing that bothers me about the situation in Gaza, the West Bank, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world is that they are a dangerous distraction from the climate change problem. UN chief Antonio Guterres said a few COP meetings ago that we must unite or perish. It was a statement of the obvious.

Again the United States has used its veto at the security council to allow Israel to continue slaughtering civilians. It is past time to enact chapter seven of the United Nations charter. Summary below.

Purpose: Chapter VII (Articles 39–51) gives the UN Security Council authority to maintain or restore international peace and security when there are threats, breaches of peace, or acts of aggression.

Key Points:

• Article 39 – The Security Council determines the existence of a threat to peace, breach of peace, or act of aggression.

• Articles 40–41 – The Council can impose provisional measures (e.g., ceasefires) and non-military sanctions (economic, diplomatic, transport, communication restrictions).

• Article 42 – If non-military measures are inadequate, the Council can authorize military action (blockades, air, sea, or land forces).

• Articles 43–47 – Member States agree to make armed forces and assistance available to the Council; a Military Staff Committee was envisaged but never became operational.

• Article 51 – Recognizes the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs, until the Security Council acts.

Below is the Palestinian representative’s response to this disgraceful veto of a resolution that could have brought this horror to an end.

Sydney demo tomorrow. See previous post.

Call me a cynic, but I do sense panic is occurring. It’s been two years now, 64 thousand dead Palestinians and mass protests worldwide. And only now the moral outrage? Anyways… better late than never. A long time ago, in a discussion with an Israeli, I said the name Netanyahu will be in the first paragraph of the final chapter of Israel’s brief history. To survive, the Israelis must overthrow their current government and enter into constructive negotiations with the Palestinians.