ABD AL-RAHMAN AL-JABARTI (1753–1825/26)
CHRONICLE OF THE FRENCH OCCUPATION (1798)
On Monday news arrived that the French had reached Damanhūr and Rosetta,
bringing about the flight of their inhabitants to Fuwwa and its surroundings. Contained in
this news was mention of the French sending notices throughout the country demanding
impost for the upkeep of the military. Furthermore they printed a large proclamation in
Arabic, calling on the people to obey them and to raise their “Bandiera.” In this
proclamation were inducements, warnings, all manner of wiliness and stipulations.
[al-Jabarti cites the proclamation]
It ends here word for word. Here is an explanation of the incoherent words and
vulgar constructions which he put into this miserable letter.
His statement “In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. There is no
god but God. He has no son, nor has He an associate in His Dominion.” In mentioning
these three sentences there is an indication that the French agree with the three religions,
but at the same time they do not agree with them, nor with any religion. They are
consistent with the Muslims in stating the formula “In the name of God,” in denying that
He has a son or an associate. They disagree with Muslims in not mentioning the two
Articles of Faith, in rejecting the mission of Muhamad, and the legal words and deeds
which are necessarily recognized by religion. . . . Then, their statement “On behalf of the
French Republic, etc.,” that is, this proclamation is sent from their Republic, that means
their body politic, because they have no chief or sultan with whom they all agree, like
others, whose function is to speak on their behalf. For when they rebelled against their
sultan six years ago and killed him, the people agreed unanimously that their state,
territories, laws, and administration of their affairs, should be in the hands of the
intelligent and wise men among them. . . . They follow this rule: great and small, high
and low, male and female are all equal. Sometimes they break this rule according to their
whims and inclinations or reasoning. Their women do not veil themselves and have no
modesty; they do not care whether they uncover their private parts. Whenever a
Frenchman has to perform an act of nature he does so wherever he happens to be, even in
full view of people, and he goes away as he is, without washing his private parts after
defecation.
**************
His saying fī hādhā ’l-taraf (hither), means “this part of the earth.” His statement
wa-qūlū li ’l-muftariyīn (but tell the slanderers) is the plural of muftarī (slanderer) which
means liar, and how worthy of this description they are. The proof of that is his saying “I
have not come to you except for the purpose of restoring your rights from the hands of
the oppressors,” which is the first lie he uttered and a falsehood which he invented. Then
he proceeds to something even worse than that, may God cast him into perdition, with his
words: “I more than the Mamluks, serve God. . . .” There is no doubt that this is a
derangement of his mind, and an excess of foolishness. . . . The Qur’ān is one of the
miracles of the Prophet which proves his truth, and that he is the Prophet to the end of
time, and that his nation is the most noble of all nations. These people deny all that and
lie in every thing they enumerate . . . . His saying “[all people] are equal in the eyes of
God” the Almighty, this is a lie and stupidity. How can this be when God has made some
superior to others as is testified by the dwellers in the Heavens and on the Earth?
Taken from al-Jabarti, “Chronicle of the French Occupation, 1798,” in Perspectives from the Past:
Primary Sources in Western Civilizations, 5th ed., eds. James Brophy, Joshua Cole, John Robertson,
Thomas Max Safley, and Carol Symes (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2012), 2:294–297.
Ze’ev Jabotinsky
‘The Iron Wall’
(aka, Vladimir Jabotinsky)
(4 November 1923)
It is an excellent rule to begin an article with the most important point. But this time, I find it
necessary to begin with an introduction, and, moreover, with a personal introduction.
I am reputed to be an enemy of the Arabs, who wants to have them ejected from Palestine,
and so forth. It is not true.
Emotionally, my attitude to the Arabs is the same as to all other nations – polite indifference.
Politically, my attitude is determined by two principles. First of all, I consider it utterly
impossible to eject the Arabs from Palestine. There will always be two nations in Palestine –
which is good enough for me, provided the Jews become the majority. And secondly, I belong
to the group that once drew up the Helsingfors Programme, the programme of national rights
for all nationalities living in the same State. In drawing up that programme, we had in mind
not only the Jews, but all nations everywhere, and its basis is equality of rights.
I am prepared to take an oath binding ourselves and our descendants that we shall never do
anything contrary to the principle of equal rights, and that we shall never try to eject anyone.
This seems to me a fairly peaceful credo.
But it is quite another question whether it is always possible to realise a peaceful aim by
peaceful means. For the answer to this question does not depend on our attitude to the
Arabs; but entirely on the attitude of the Arabs to us and to Zionism.
Now, after this introduction, we may proceed to the subject.
Voluntary Agreement Not Possible
There can be no voluntary agreement between ourselves and the Palestine Arabs. Not now,
nor in the prospective future. I say this with such conviction, not because I want to hurt the
moderate Zionists. I do not believe that they will be hurt. Except for those who were born
blind, they realised long ago that it is utterly impossible to obtain the voluntary consent of
the Palestine Arabs for converting "Palestine" from an Arab country into a country with a
Jewish majority.
My readers have a general idea of the history of colonisation in other countries. I suggest
that they consider all the precedents with which they are acquainted, and see whether there
is one solitary instance of any colonisation being carried on with the consent of the native
population. There is no such precedent.
The native populations, civilised or uncivilised, have always stubbornly resisted the colonists,
irrespective of whether they were civilised or savage.
And it made no difference whatever whether the colonists behaved decently or not. The
companions of Cortez and Pizzaro or (as some people will remind us) our own ancestors
under Joshua Ben Nun, behaved like brigands; but the Pilgrim Fathers, the first real pioneers
of North America, were people of the highest morality, who did not want to do harm to
anyone, least of all to the Red Indians, and they honestly believed that there was room
enough in the prairies both for the Paleface and the Redskin. Yet the native population fought
with the same ferocity against the good colonists as against the bad.
Every native population, civilised or not, regards its lands as its national home, of which it is
the sole master, and it wants to retain that mastery always; it will refuse to admit not only
new masters but, even new partners or collaborators.
Arabs Not Fools
This is equally true of the Arabs. Our Peace-mongers are trying to persuade us that the Arabs
are either fools, whom we can deceive by masking our real aims, or that they are corrupt and
can be bribed to abandon to us their claim to priority in Palestine , in return for cultural and
economic advantages. I repudiate this conception of the Palestinian Arabs. Culturally they are
five hundred years behind us, they have neither our endurance nor our determination; but
they are just as good psychologists as we are, and their minds have been sharpened like ours
by centuries of fine-spun logomachy. We may tell them whatever we like about the innocence
of our aims, watering them down and sweetening them with honeyed words to make them
palatable, but they know what we want, as well as we know what they do not want. They feel
at least the same instinctive jealous love of Palestine, as the old Aztecs felt for ancient
Mexico, and their Sioux for their rolling Prairies.
To imagine, as our Arabophiles do, that they will voluntarily consent to the realisation of
Zionism. In return for the moral and material conveniences which the Jewish colonist brings
with him, is a childish notion, which has at bottom a kind of contempt for the Arab people; it
means that they despise the Arab race, which they regard as a corrupt mob that can be
bought and sold, and are willing to give up their fatherland for a good railway system.
All Natives Resist Colonists
There is no justification for such a belief. It may be that some individual Arabs take bribes.
But that does not mean that the Arab people of Palestine as a whole will sell that fervent
patriotism that they guard so jealously, and which even the Papuans will never sell. Every
native population in the world resists colonists as long as it has the slightest hope of being
able to rid itself of the danger of being colonised.
That is what the Arabs in Palestine are doing, and what they will persist in doing as long as
there remains a solitary spark of hope that they will be able to prevent the transformation of
"Palestine" into the "Land of Israel."
Arab Comprehension
Some of us have induced ourselves to believe that all the trouble is due to misunderstanding
– the Arabs have not understood us, and that is the only reason why they resist us ;if we can
only make it clear to them how moderate our intentions really are, they will immediately
extend to us their hand in friendship.
This belief is utterly unfounded and it has been exploded again and again. I shall recall only
one instance of many. A few years ago, when the late Mr. Sokolow was on one of his periodic
visits to Palestine, he addressed a meeting on this very question of the "misunderstanding."
He demonstrated lucidly and convincingly that the Arabs are terribly mistaken if they think
that we have any desire to deprive them of their possessions or to drive them our of the
country, or that we want to oppress them. We do not even ask for a Jewish Government to
hold the Mandate of the League of Nations.
One of the Arab papers, "El Carmel," replied at the time, in an editorial article, the purport of
which was this:
The Zionists are making a fuss about nothing. There is no misunderstanding. All that Mr.
Sokolow says about the Zionist intentions is true, but the Arabs know that without him. Of
course, the Zionists cannot now be thinking of driving the Arabs out of the country, or
oppressing them, not do they contemplate a Jewish Government. Quite obviously, they are
now concerned with one thing only- that the Arabs should not hinder their immigration. The
Zionists assure us that even immigration will be regulated strictly according to the economic
needs of Palestine. The Arabs have never doubted that: it is a truism, for otherwise there can
be no immigration.
No "Misunderstanding"
This Arab editor was actually willing to agree that Palestine has a very large potential
absorptive capacity, meaning that there is room for a great many Jews in the country without
displacing a single Arab. There is only one thing the Zionists want, and it is that one thing
that the Arabs do not want, for that is the way by which the Jews would gradually become
the majority, and then a Jewish Government would follow automatically, and the future of the
Arab minority would depend on the goodwill of the Jews; and a minority status is not a good
thing, as the Jews themselves are never tired of pointing out. So there is no
"misunderstanding".
The Zionists want only one thing, Jewish immigration; and this Jewish immigration is what
the Arabs do not want.
This statement of the position by the Arab editor is so logical, so obvious, so indisputable,
that everyone ought to know it by heart, and it should be made the basis of all our future
discussions on the Arab question. It does not matter at all which phraseology we employ in
explaining our colonising aims, Herzl's or Sir Herbert Samuel's.
Colonisation carries its own explanation, the only possible explanation, unalterable and as
clear as daylight to every ordinary Jew and every ordinary Arab.
Colonisation can have only one aim, and Palestine Arabs cannot accept this aim. It lies in the
very nature of things, and in this particular regard nature cannot be changed.
The Iron Wall
We cannot offer any adequate compensation to the Palestinian Arabs in return for Palestine.
And therefore, there is no likelihood of any voluntary agreement being reached. So that all
those who regard such an agreement as a condition sine qua non for Zionism may as well say
"non" and withdraw from Zionism.
Zionist colonisation must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population.
Which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is
independent of the native population – behind an iron wall, which the native population
cannot breach.
That is our Arab policy; not what we should be, but what it actually is, whether we admit it or
not. What need, otherwise, of the Balfour Declaration? Or of the Mandate? Their value to us is
that outside Power has undertaken to create in the country such conditions of administration
and security that if the native population should desire to hinder our work, they will find it
impossible.
And we are all of us ,without any exception, demanding day after day that this outside Power,
should carry out this task vigorously and with determination.
In this matter there is no difference between our "militarists" and our "vegetarians". Except
that the first prefer that the iron wall should consist of Jewish soldiers, and the others are
content that they should be British.
We all demand that there should be an iron wall. Yet we keep spoiling our own case, by
talking about "agreement" which means telling the Mandatory Government that the important
thing is not the iron wall, but discussions. Empty rhetoric of this kind is dangerous. And that
is why it is not only a pleasure but a duty to discredit it and to demonstrate that it is both
fantastic and dishonest.
Zionism Moral and Just
Two brief remarks:
In the first place, if anyone objects that this point of view is immoral, I answer: It is not true:
either Zionism is moral and just ,or it is immoral and unjust. But that is a question that we
should have settled before we became Zionists. Actually we have settled that question, and in
the affirmative.
We hold that Zionism is moral and just. And since it is moral and just, justice must be done,
no matter whether Joseph or Simon or Ivan or Achmet agree with it or not.
There is no other morality.
Eventual Agreement
In the second place, this does not mean that there cannot be any agreement with the
Palestine Arabs. What is impossible is a voluntary agreement. As long as the Arabs feel that
there is the least hope of getting rid of us, they will refuse to give up this hope in return for
either kind words or for bread and butter, because they are not a rabble, but a living people.
And when a living people yields in matters of such a vital character it is only when there is no
longer any hope of getting rid of us, because they can make no breach in the iron wall. Not
till then will they drop their extremist leaders whose watchword is "Never!" And the
leadership will pass to the moderate groups, who will approach us with a proposal that we
should both agree to mutual concessions. Then we may expect them to discuss honestly
practical questions, such as a guarantee against Arab displacement, or equal rights for Arab
citizen, or Arab national integrity.
And when that happens, I am convinced that we Jews will be found ready to give them
satisfactory guarantees, so that both peoples can live together in peace, like good
neighbours.
But the only way to obtain such an agreement, is the iron wall, which is to say a strong
power in Palestine that is not amenable to any Arab pressure. In other words, the only way to
reach an agreement in the future is to abandon all idea of seeking an agreement at present.
OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS
177
FRENCH MANDATE FOR SYRIA AND THE LEBANON1
The CounciloftheLeagueofNations:
Whereasthe PrincipalAlliedPowershave agreedthat the territory
of
Syriaand the Lebanon,whichformerly
belongedto the TurkishEmpire
shall,withinsuchboundariesas maybe fixedby the said Powers,be entrustedto a Mandatorychargedwiththe dutyofrendering
administrative
adviceand assistanceto the population,
in accordancewiththe provisions
ofArticle22 (paragraph4) ofthe CovenantoftheLeague ofNations;and
Whereasthe PrincipalAlliedPowershave decidedthatthe mandatefor
theterritory
referred
to aboveshouldbe conferred
ontheGovernment
ofthe
FrenchRepublic,whichhas acceptedit; and
Whereasthe termsof this mandate,whichare definedin the articles
below,have also beenacceptedby theGovernment
oftheFrenchRepublic
and submitted
to the CounciloftheLeagueforapproval;and
Whereasthe Government
of the FrenchRepublichas undertakento
exercise
thismandateonbehalfoftheLeagueofNations,in conformity
with
thefollowing
provisions;
and
Whereasby the aforementioned
Article22 (paragraph8), it is provided
thatthedegreeofauthority,
controloradministration
to be exercised
bythe
nothavingbeenpreviously
Mandatory,
ofthe
agreeduponby themembers
League,shallbe explicitly
defined
by theCounciloftheLeagueofNations;
thesaid mandate,defines
Confirming
itstermsas follows:
ARTICLE
1
The Mandatoryshall frame,withina periodof threeyearsfromthe
comingintoforceofthismandate,an organiclawforSyriaandtheLebanon.
Thisorganiclaw shallbe framed
in agreement
withthenativeauthorities
and shalltakeintoaccounttherights,
interests,
and wishesofall thepopulation inhabitingthe said territory.The Mandatoryshall furtherenact
measuresto facilitate
ofSyriaandtheLebanon
theprogressive
development
as independent
states. Pendingthe comingintoeffect
ofthe organiclaw,
theGovernment
ofSyriaand theLebanonshallbe conducted
in accordance
withthespiritofthismandate.
The Mandatoryshall,as faras circumstances
permit,encouragelocal
autonomy.
ARTICLE
2
The Mandatorymay maintainits troopsin the said territory
forits
defence. It shallfurther
untilthe entryintoforceof the
be empowered,
organiclaw and the reestablishment
of publicsecurity,to organizesuch
local militiaas may be necessaryforthe defenceof the territory,
and to
oforder. These
employthismilitiafordefence
and alsoforthemaintenance
' LeagueofNationsOfficial
Aug.1922,p. 1013. See declarationgivingcondition
Journal,
of approvalof the mandatesforPalestineand Syria,infra,p. 193.
178
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
localforcesmayonlybe recruited
fromtheinhabitants
ofthesaid territory.
The said militiashallthereafter
be underthelocal authorities,
subjectto
the authority
and the controlwhichtheMandatoryshallretainoverthese
forces. It shallnotbe used forpurposesotherthanthoseabove specified
save withtheconsentoftheMandatory.
to the
NothingshallprecludeSyriaand the Lebanonfromcontributing
cost of the maintenance
of the forcesof the Mandatorystationedin the
territory.
The Mandatoryshall at all timespossessthe rightto makeuse of the
ports,railwaysand meansofcommunication
ofSyriaand theLebanonfor
thepassageofitstroopsand ofall materials,
suppliesand fuel.
3
The Mandatoryshall be entrustedwiththe exclusivecontrolof the
foreignrelationsof Syria and the Lebanon and withthe rightto issue
exequatursto theconsulsappointedby foreign
Powers. NationalsofSyria
and theLebanonlivingoutsidethelimitsoftheterritory
shallbe underthe
and consularprotection
diplomatic
oftheMandatory.
ARTICLE
ARTICLE
4
The Mandatoryshallbe responsible
forseeingthatno partoftheterritory
ofSyriaand theLebanonis cededorleasedorin anywayplacedunderthe
controlofa foreign
Power.
ARTICLE
5
The privilegesand immunities
of foreigners,
includingthe benefitsof
or
consularjurisdiction
and protection
as formerly
enjoyedby capitulation
usage in the OttomanEmpire,shall not be applicablein Syria and the
Lebanon. Foreignconsulartribunalsshall,however,continueto perform
theirdutiesuntilthecomingintoforceofthenewlegalorganization
provided
forinArticle6.
UnlessthePowerswhosenationalsenjoyedtheaforementioned
privileges
on August1, 1914,shall have previouslyrenouncedthe
and immunities
rightto theirreestablishment,
or shallhave agreedto theirnon-application
duringa specifiedperiod,theseprivileges
and immunities
shall at the expirationof the mandatebe immediately
reestablished
in theirentirety
or
withsuchmodifications
as mayhave beenagreeduponbetweenthePowers
concerned.
ARTICLE 6
The Mandatoryshallestablishin Syriaand theLebanona judicialsystem
whichshallassureto nativesas wellas to foreigners
a completeguarantee
oftheirrights.
Respectforthe personalstatusofthe variouspeoplesand fortheirreligiousinterestsshall be fullyguaranteed. In particular,
the controland
OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS
179
of Wakfsshall be exercisedin completeaccordancewith
administration
religious
lawandthedispositions
ofthefounders.
ARTICLE
7
ofspecialextradition
Pendingtheconclusion
theextradition
agreements,
treatiesat presentin forcebetweenforeign
Powersand theMandatoryshall
applywithin
theterritory
ofSyriaandtheLebanon.
ARTICLE
8
The Mandatoryshall ensureto all completefreedomof conscienceand
the freeexerciseof all formsof worshipwhichare consonantwithpublic
orderand morality.No discrimination
ofanykindshallbe madebetween
the inhabitantsof Syria and the Lebanonon the groundof differences
in
race,religionor language.
The Mandatoryshallencouragepublicinstruction,
whichshallbe given
themediumofthenativelanguagesin use in theterritory
ofSyria
through
andtheLebanon.
The rightofeach community
to maintainits ownschoolsfortheinstructionand educationofitsownmembers
initsownlanguage,whileconforming
to sucheducationalrequirements
ofa generalnatureas the administration
mayimpose,shallnotbe deniedorimpaired.
ARTICLE
9
The Mandatoryshallrefrain
fromall interference
in the administration
oftheCouncilsofmanagement
(Conseilsdefabrique)or in themanagement
of religiouscommunities
and sacredshrinesbelonging
to the variousreligions,theimmunity
ofwhichhasbeenexpressly
guaranteed.
ARTICLE 10
The supervision
exercisedby the Mandatoryoverthe religiousmissions
in Syriaand theLebanonshallbe limitedto themaintenance
ofpublicorder
and good government;
the activitiesof thesereligiousmissionsshallin no
norshalltheirmembers
way be restricted,
be subjectedto any restrictive
measureson the groundof nationality,
providedthat theiractivitiesare
tothedomainofreligion.
confined
The religiousmissionsmay also concernthemselves
witheducationand
relief,subjectto thegeneralrightofregulation
and controlby theMandatoryor ofthe local government,
in regardto education,publicinstruction
and charitable
relief.
ARTICLE 11
The Mandatoryshallsee thatthereis no discrimination
in Syriaor the
Lebanonagainstthe nationals,includingsocietiesand associations,
of any
oftheLeagueofNationsas comparedwithitsownnationals,
statemember
180
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
or withthenationalsofany otherforsocietiesand associations,
including
taxationor commerce,
theexerciseofproeignstatein mattersconcerning
or navigation,or in the treatment
of shipsor airfessionsor industries,
thereshallbe no discrimination
in Syriaor the Lebanon
craft. Similarly,
in ordestinedforanyofthesaidstates;thereshall
againstgoodsoriginating
underequitableconditions,
acrossthesaidterritory.
be freedom
oftransit,
or causeto be imposed
may
impose
Subjectto theabove,theMandatory
suchtaxesand customsdutiesas it mayconsider
by thelocal governments
actingunderits
necessary. The Mandatory,or the local governments
any specialcustoms
advice,may also concludeon groundsof contiguity
withan adjoiningcountry.
arrangements
The Mandatorymaytakeor causeto be taken,subjectto theprovisions
ofparagraph1 ofthisarticle,suchstepsas it maythinkbestto ensurethe
and to safeguard
ofthesaid territory
ofthenaturalresources
development
ofthelocalpopulation.
theinterests
Concessionsfor the developmentof these naturalresourcesshall be
of nationalitybetweenthe nationalsof all
grantedwithoutdistinction
thattheydo not
League
ofNations,buton condition
ofthe
statesmembers
infringe
upon the authorityof the local government.Concessionsin the
shallnotbe granted. This clauseshallin no
natureofa generalmonopoly
ofa purelyfiscal
to createmonopolies
Mandatory
waylimittherightofthe
and with
the
Lebanon,
Syria
and
of
of
the
territory
interest
in
the
character
appear
would
which
resources
the
fiscal
territory
a viewto assuringto the
bestadaptedto thelocalneeds,or,in certaincases,witha viewto developing
an organization
by thestateorthrough
eitherdirectly
thenaturalresources
or indirectly
either
not
involve
underits control,providedthatthisdoes
of
favor
the
in
ofthenaturalresources
thecreationofa monopoly
directly
which
treatment
Mandatoryor its nationals,norinvolveany preferential
equaland industrial
commercial
wouldbe incompatible
withtheeconomic,
above.
ityguaranteed
ARTICLE 12
The Mandatoryshalladhere,on behalfofSyriaand theLebanon,to any
alreadyexisting,or whichmay be conagreements
generalinternational
withtheapprovalofthe League ofNations,in respectof
cludedhereafter
in armsand
in drugs,the traffic
the slave trade,the traffic
the following:
commercialequality,freedomof transitand navigation,
ammunition,
and measor wirelesscommunications,
aerialnavigation,
postal,telegraphic
artorindustries.
ofliterature,
uresfortheprotection
13
The Mandatoryshall securethe adhesionof Syriaand the Lebanon,so
far as social,religiousand otherconditionspermit,to such measuresof
commonutilityas maybe adoptedby theLeagueofNationsforpreventing
diseasesofanimalsandplants.
and combating
disease,including
ARTICLE
OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS
181
ARTICLE 14
The Mandatoryshalldrawup and put intoforcewithintwelvemonths
proviwiththe following
in conformity
fromthisdate a law ofantiquities
in thematterofexcavasions. Thislaw shallensureequalityoftreatment
researchto the nationalsof all statesmembersof
tionsand archieological
theLeagueofNations.
or any productof human
(1) "Antiquity"means any construction
A.D.
1700
year
the
than
activityearlier
ofantiquitiesshallproceedby encourage(2) The law fortheprotection
mentratherthanbythreat.
an antiquitywithoutbeingfurnished
Anypersonwho,havingdiscovered
to in paragraph5, reportsthe same to an
referred
withthe authorization
shall be rewardedaccordingto the
of the competentdepartment,
official
valueofthediscovery.
department,
maybe disposedofexceptto thecompetent
(3) No antiquity
ofanysuchantiquity.
theacquisition
renounces
unlessthisdepartment
No antiquitymayleave the countrywithoutan exportlicencefromthe
saiddepartment.
destroysor damagesan
or negligently
(4) Any personwho maliciously
antiquityshallbe liableto a penaltyto be fixed.
(5) No clearingof groundor diggingwiththe object of findingantiquities
by
underpenaltyof fine,exceptto personsauthorized
shallbe permitted,
department.
thecompetent
or pertemporary
(6) Equitabletermsshall be fixedforexpropriation,
interest.
manent,of lands whichmightbe of historicalor archaeological
to excavateshallonlybe grantedto personswhoshow
(7) Authorization
experience. The Mandatoryshall
sufficient
guaranteesof archaeological
act
insucha wayas to excludescholars
authorizations,
these
not,ingranting
of any nation withoutgood grounds.
(8) The proceeds of excavations may be divided between the excavator
and the competentdepartmentin a proportionfixedby that department.
reasons,theexcavatorshallreceive
forscientific
If divisionseemsimpossible
in lieu ofa partofthefind.
a fairindemnity
ARTICLE
15
Upon the cominginto forceof the organiclaw referredto in Article1, an
arrangementshall be made between the Mandatory and the local governby thelatterofall expensesincurredby the Mandamentsforreimbursement
tory in organizing the administration,developing local resources, and
carryingout permanentpublicworks,of whichthe countryretainsthe
to the Councilof the
shallbe communicated
benefit. Such arrangement
LeagueofNations.
182
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
16
languagesofSyriaandtheLebanon.
FrenchandArabicshallbe theofficial
ARTICLE
17
The Mandatoryshallmaketo the Councilofthe League of Nationsan
of the Councilas to the measurestaken
annualreportto the satisfaction
ofthismandate. Copiesofall
duringtheyearto carryout the provisions
duringthe yearshallbe attachedto the
promulgated
laws and regulations
said report.
ARTICLE 18
The consentofthe CounciloftheLeague ofNationsis requiredforany
ofthetermsofthismandate.
modification
ARTICLE
ARTICLE 19
ofthemandate,theCounciloftheLeagueofNations
On thetermination
by the
to safeguardforthe futurethe fulfillment
shall use its influence
including
obligations,
ofSyriaand theLebanonofthefinancial
Government
ofSyria
assumedby the administration
regularly
pensionsand allowances,
or oftheLebanonduringthe periodofthemandate.
20
shouldarisebetween
The Mandatoryagreesthatifanydisputewhatever
to the
relating
of
Nations
the
League
of
theMandatoryand anothermember
such
of
the
mandate,
or the applicationof the provisions
interpretation
the
to
submitted
be
shall
dispute,if it cannotbe settledby negotiation,
the
14
of
for
Article
by
CourtofInternational
Justiceprovided
Permanent
CovenantoftheLeagueofNations.
shallbe depositedin originalin the archivesof
The presentinstrument
by the Secrecopiesshallbe forwarded
theLeagueofNationsand certified
oftheLeague.
oftheLeagueofNationsto all members
tary-General
day of July,one thousandnine
Done at Londonon the twenty-fourth
hundredand twenty-two.
ARTICLE
BRITISH
MANDATE
FOR
TOGOLAND
1
The CounciloftheLeagueofNations:
Whereas,by Article119 ofthe treatyof peace withGermanysignedat
Versailleson June28, 1919,Germanyrenouncedin favorof the Principal
Alliedand AssociatedPowersall her rightsover her overseapossessions,
Togoland;and
therein
including
Whereasthe PrincipalAlliedand AssociatedPowers agreedthat the
1LeagueofNationsw
OfficalJournal,Aug. 1922,p. 880.
O’Mara 1
How I was mistaken for Isis leader Abu Bakr
al-Baghdadi - and why it breaks my heart
•
By Iyad el-Baghdadi
Islamic State chief Abu Bakr al-BaghdadiReuters
On 26 December, I reported the latest speech by Islamic State (Isis) leader Abu
Bakr al-Baghdadi on Twitter. A Russian media outlet made the incredible mistake of
reporting that I was him, and that caught on in several more papers. Before the
end of the week, even Twitter briefly blocked me before realising its mistake.
But as well as being incredibly sloppy journalism, it's quite poignant that I was
O’Mara 2
confused with the IS (Daesh) chief, seeing how the two "Baghdadis" are ideological
competitors. I am anArab Spring activist who campaigns for an Arab world in which
human rights are inviolable; he is the theocratic leader of a terrorist organisation
pretending to be an Islamic State.
Lookalike?
I admit there are some similarities - we both wear a hat
Iyad al-Baghdadi
Except for the black headgear, I don't share much with the IS chief by way of
resemblance. But pointedly enough, the Arab Spring and IS arise from the same
pool of frustrations – they are both native revolutionary movements demanding
radical change, competing for the psyche of the region's youth. The future Arab
world they see can't be more different – but they both offer promises of dignity,
unity, autonomy, prosperity and revival.
The Arab Spring arose from a stagnant, unjust Arab order that failed to offer hope or
dignity to its young population; it signalled a rejection of the status quo, which it
sees as corrupt and wishes to replace it. It sought to apply relentless pressure to
achieve reform – by ballots if possible, or by the overthrow of tyrannical rulers if
necessary. It expressed an idealistic, non-chauvinistic pan-Arabism and sought to
rediscover and correct Islam's role in our future.
O’Mara 3
Respectively, IS arose from a broken Arab order, exploiting instability to ride a wave
of disenfranchisement, despair and humiliation. It used the brutality of tyrannical
regimes to amplify its message and appeal. It is virulently hostile towards all Arab
regimes and seeks to undermine and topple them. And despite its unapologetic
sectarianism, it paints itself to its followers as a pan-Islamic "state" in which
Muslims are equal regardless their ethnicity.
Polar opposites
It crushes me every time someone falls for their evil – I wish I could have
an hour's conversation with each one of these young people and make
them see that there's another way
But while the two movements are "revolutionary", the similarities seem to end here.
Once we delve into how completely different the changes they want to bring, and
how diametrically opposed their preferred mechanisms are, we start to see why
Arab Spring activists such as myself are absolutely infuriated at IS and abhor it and
its ilk. IS's vision is a horrific zombie of the Arab Spring's dreams.
The Arab Spring wanted to achieve unity through a deep acceptance of diversity; it
called for an open, civic nationalism. It campaigned for individual rights, and had
Christians and Muslims, Sunnis and Shias, men and women protest shoulder to
shoulder. It rejected sectarianism and "otherisation", and demonstrated an
anti-authoritarian tendency that mistrusted anyone with too much power,
demanding transparency and accountability.
IS, in stark contrast, wants to impose a brutal "unity" through enforced uniformity,
informed by a dismal black-or-white world view. It is an overtly sectarian state that
unapologetically oppresses minorities, and even other Muslims. It sees individuals
as dispensable and tramples their rights in the name of the collective – much like
many of the old regimes do. It does not want to end tyranny – it only wishes to
forcibly impose one with a religious mandate.
O’Mara 4
Most importantly, the Arab Spring expressed a deep belief in the power of
non-violence to bring about change; it started with a symbolic self-immolation
rather than a violent attack. Its tool was mass protests filling the streets and
squares of Arab cities to demand change. Although violence did break out
occasionally in Arab Spring demonstrations and marches, the vast majority of it was
directed at the protesters by officers or hired thugs of the regime.
IS, on the other hand, deeply believes violence is the only way – one of its key
manifestos is literally titled The Management Of Savagery. IS's blood lust is evil
incarnate – proudly posting snuff videos in which they behead, burn, blow up and
drown hapless prisoners. It openly boasts that its target is not peace but perpetual
and unrelenting war against everyone who opposes it by any means necessary, be
it terrorism or asymmetric warfare.
Youth and radicalisation
You can perhaps begin to see why it's infuriating for an Islamic libertarian to be
confused for a terror mastermind. But what causes me the most anguish is IS's
attempts to radicalise young men and women and sell them on its vision and ideas.
What drives me to study radicalisationis the fact that the Arab Spring and IS
compete for the psyche and support of youthful, angry, hopeful Arabs and Muslims.
The best and most final revenge against IS is an Arab future in which
they're irrelevant; an Arab future in which we find dignity without them
We offer these youth diametrically opposite interpretations for the humiliating state
of the Arab world; I insist it's because we have allowed unchecked power, abuse of
rights and unaccountable rule. The "other" Baghdadi, on the other hand, says it's
caused by native traitors and foreign conspirators because we failed to properly
apply religious rules, leading to divine wrath and vengeance.
What makes a young person susceptible to radicalisation revolves around identity,
purpose and meaning. IS recruiters targets these soft spots, presenting a closed
identity and a violent vision blasphemously packaged as "Islamic". It crushes me
every time someone falls for its evil – I wish I could have an hour's conversation
O’Mara 5
with each one of these young people and make them see there's another way.
Arab Spring as solution
IS had guns but we never did. Eventually, two counter-revolutionary axes assaulted
our Arab Spring – one spearheaded by Saudi Arabia and another by Iran. The two
regional powers continue to fight over the region, over the crushed homes and
bodies of countless innocent civilians. But they cannot stem back the tide forever,
as the demographics of the region mature and the world realises tyranny can no
longer bring stability.
IS and other extremisms are on the menu of ideas because they claim they'll
achieve certain things – dignity, justice, unity and revival. The best and most
sustainable way to defeat them is to outperform them in achieving those promises.
We need to rob them the grievance that they continue to exploit. The best and most
final revenge against IS is an Arab future in which they're irrelevant; an Arab future
in which we find dignity without them.
The Arab Spring is the world's best hope to end the cycle of tyranny and terrorism
that the Arab world is stuck in. In the regional chess game, we are the underdog;
but we also represent the concerns and aspirations of the average young man or
woman who wants to live in peace, get along with his neighbours, and be free to
pursue his own prosperity. The Arab Spring was never the problem; it's the solution.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment