Your feedback is important to us!
We invite all our readers to share with us their views and comments about this article.
Disclaimer: Comments submitted by third parties on this site are the sole responsibility of the individual(s) whose content is submitted. The Daily Star accepts no responsibility for the content of comment(s), including, without limitation, any error, omission or inaccuracy therein. Please note that your email address will NOT appear on the site.
Alert: If you are facing problems with posting comments, please note that you must verify your email with Disqus prior to posting a comment. follow this link to make sure your account meets the requirements. (http://bit.ly/vDisqus)
On Dec. 23, 2016, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 2334, stating that Israel's settlement activity constitutes a "flagrant violation" of international law and has "no legal validity".The assertion that Article 80 of the U.N. Charter implicitly recognizes the Mandate for Palestine is more complex than often claimed.The proposed clause would have prevented a trusteeship agreement from altering the Jewish right to nationhood secured by the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate for Palestine. The U.N. conference ignored the agency's request and stipulated in Article 80 of the charter that the U.N. organization did have the necessary power to conclude trusteeship agreements – such as the one that was suggested by the UNGA regarding Jerusalem in 1947 – that could alter existing rights held under a mandate.None of the historical events of the last 70 years (1947-2017) has changed the juridical and historical validity of these aspects. In conclusion, the British Mandate for Palestine and the historical events that followed offer no legal or historical justification for the construction of settlements, nor for keeping, since half a century, millions of individuals both without a state and a citizenship (i.e. rights).
FOLLOW THIS ARTICLE