Wallace Brand (Salubrius)
It is interesting that the claims of settlement illegality are always framed as illegal under International Law. How many people worldwide who have accepted this claim have any knowledge whatsoever of International Law? The technique used is reminiscent of the psychological warfare techniques of the Soviet, now Russian dezinformatsiya or disinformation group of the KGB and its successor. If the Government of Israel were ever to engage in public diplomacy on this matter, I hope it would take into account some of what I have learned in my research for this paper.
Excerpt:
The Paris Peace Talks and the decision at San Remo
To understand the San Remo Agreement
we must go back in time to WWI when the Turkish Ottoman Empire entered the War on
the side of Germany. Germany and Turkey lost that war. They entered into an Armistice
Agreement on November 11, 1918. As the holder of territory after being the winner
of a defensive war the Principal Allied War Powers — The British Commonwealth, France,
the US, Italy and Japan — were entitled under International Law of long standing
custom to occupy the Ottoman Empire until a peace treaty was signed that delineated
boundaries agreed on by the parties.
After the Paris Peace talks that were held
commencing January 4th, 1919 the Principals determined to establish a world government
to maintain peace to be entitled The League of Nations. Its Covenant or charter
was Part one of the Treaty of Versailles. The participants to the Paris Peace talks
included the Principal War Powers and European claimants primarily interested in
territories in Europe.
Even before the end of the war, in November, 1917 the Lord
Balfour Policy had been established as British policy that World Jewry would be
the beneficiary of the trust of the political or national rights to Palestine. Both
Arabs and Jews interested in territories in the Middle East were also present at
the Peace Talks in Paris and submitted their claims there.
The Arabs claims were
made under the auspices of King Ibn Hussayn, however they were presented by Lawrence
of Arabia and also through George Antonius. Antonius brought up Arab and French
claims conflicting with the Balfour Declaration, notably claims based on the Hussayn--‐McMahon
correspondence and the secret Sykes--‐Picot Agreement. Antonius had made a careful
study of these and his arguments initially seemed quite convincing that the British
had sold the same horse three times.
The Zionist Organization made the following
claim for a two-step process in which the territory would first become a Jewish
National Home and then would become a reconstituted Jewish state:
"Palestine
shall be placed under such political, administrative and economic conditions as
will secure the establishment there of the Jewish National Home and ultimately render possible
the creation of an autonomous Commonwealth, it being clearly
understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious
rights of existing non--‐ Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political
status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.[emphasis added]
Download the Entire Report (59 Pages in PDF format)
Wallace Brand (Salubrius) is a
retired lawyer. He worked for several government agencies, among which
were the Federal Power Commission and the Antitrust Division of the US
Department of Justice. He also had a private practice representing
small non profit utilities against large established utilities. As a
result of the attacks on 9/11, he has become an activist against
terrorism.
Source: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2385304 Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment