Talk:San Remo conference

Note
Note Article 25: "In the territories Iying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, ", which clearly implies that the eastern boundaries were not determined by this conference. Also, note the Ma'an and Aqaba border issues between Transjordan and Hejaz, not resolved until 1925. - Mustafaa 11:22, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're right, but that's from the 1921-22 text of the Mandate, not the 1920 resolution, to which I gave a couple of links. In view of your comment, I probably should have said (at least) five years, not four, but I want to do a bit more checking. AFAIK the major issues were resolved by 4 years later, many of them much earlier.--John Z 14:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article makes the following statement - "The decisions of the conference mainly just confirmed (e.g. concerning Palestine) those of the First Conference of London (February 1920)". However the page on the "Conference of London" that this is linked to indicates that that conference took place after the Sanremo conference. MarkMcLT 20:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Balfour's intention was for ALL of Palestine to become the Jewish National Home, not just the western 22%. This was confirmed by Balfour's grandson at a conference at Balfour House at which I was present. In 1939 the British Parliament debated the meaning of 'in Palestine' and decided in its infamous antisemitic White Paper to interpret this as some small part of Palestine. The UN failed to uphold its charter article 80 which maintains the rights obtained at San Remo. John UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.28.5 (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Sanremo, not San Remo

 * The correct name of the town is San Remo. Since I am not a registered user I cannot move the article. --213.155.224.232 20:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Official name of Sanremo is... of course, Sanremo. Not San Remo (Italian for "Saint Remo", where no saint called Remo ever existed). So, it's absolutely impossible that the conference could be named "San Remo Conference". I know it is a common mispelling, but if we want to strive here for correctness (see for example the Britannica entry, you won't find cited as "San Remo"), please leave the page under this name. --Attilios 12:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The Conference was known then and since as the "San Remo Conference" and was never referred to as anything else. The fact that the town is actually called "Sanremo" in Italian is not really relevant. For the sake of accuracy I recommend that we change the name of this article back to what it was. --Ian Pitchford 13:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ian. Never seen it as Sanremo conference, always with a space.  Does anyone really think nonexistence of a saint would stop the Italians or the English from calling things what they like? I doubt naming conventions were so set in stone back then.   Finally, the pizzeria near my high school was San Remo Pizza.  Maybe  the conference was named after it.  :-)


 * More seriously, I restored an external link I put in a couple years ago, to the original text of the San Remo Resolution, in English and in French, which was luckily still in the text of the article. A well meaning editor replaced it with " a more complete version" which however was not to the correct document, pointing instead to the text of the 1922 Mandate, which is erroneously called in the "more complete" link and several other places on the web and in print, the San Remo Mandate, with confusing and impossible dates.  A hint that something is awry is that while it says San Remo Conference, April 24, 1920 at the top, it is dated DONE AT LONDON the twenty-fourth day of July, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two at the bottom.   I put in dates and a warning that should avoid a repetition.and changed another link to the superior one the well meaning editor gave.  Note that the August 1920 Treaty of Sevres speaks of the drafting of the mandate as something for the future.  This might be a slight help for the current confusion and warring in related articles, which I will try to do a little to clarify and pacify. John Z 09:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes. I'd noticed the incorrect link a while ago and had forgotten about it. Thanks again. BTW I have checked contemporary news sources and all refer to the event as the "San Remo Conference". --Ian Pitchford 11:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the name of this event in English (99% of the time) is "San Remo conference". It is interesting but not relevant what the correct name of the Italian city is. Who will move it back? --Zerotalk 12:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * According to Google search the faulty reference appears in 114 articles. I can use AWB to change them. --Ian Pitchford 13:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the opinion of only two people, and of Anglo-Saxon country, means "consensus". I think, this is an international encyclopedia. As the name of the conference is not official, but it's just that of the "Conference of " - Sanremo (meaning "The conference held at..."), not the "Conference of Sanremo", we should use the correct name of the city. Bye. --Attilios 14:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Mmhmhm... It seems that Britannica cites it as Conference of San Remo; however, it also wrongly cites Sanremo as San Remo. So, should we consider both of them wrong? Bye. --Attilios 14:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine to address the issue on the page dealing with the name of the town, but almost all English language sources, including contemporary accounts in newspapers refer to the "San Remo conference". --Ian Pitchford 14:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In the past week I've looked at 20+ books and academic papers regarding this conference and I have not seen any spelling other than "San Remo". --Zerotalk 10:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, This is indeed the conference held in a city. In italian, the city is named "Sanremo" but in French it is "San Remo". Alithien 22:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah…and the language of diplomacy was…. This looks like a plausible explanation of the issue! —Ian Spackman 23:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Existentialism and nomenclature
Not sure what the best name for the conference is: whatever good quality English language sources use. But this is a quote from santiebeati.it on ‘San Remo’, which seems to confirm that the saint did exist (a seventh-century bishop of Genoa), that he died in the the place now called Sanremo, and that the town can also be called ‘San Remo’ in Italian:
 * L'onomastico [Remo] viene festeggiato il 22 dicembre in ricordo di San Romolo, detto "Remo", vescovo di Genova nell'anno 641, vissuto e morto a Villa Matuzia, antico nome della città di San Remo che da lui cambiò poi nome. In alcuni luoghi è venerato il 13 ottobre.

—Ian Spackman 14:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's very useful. Thank you. --Ian Pitchford 14:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

subsequent (?)
There is an error in the last sentence in the article's lead section: "As Turkey rejected this treaty, the conference's decisions were only finally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922 subsequent to the acceptance of the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne." Either (a) the 24 July 1922 date is wrong, or (b) the word subsequent is wrong. Unfortunately, I don't know the facts needed to resolve this. Thanks, --Rich Janis (talk) 05:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The Paris Peace Conference established the mandates system by January 1920, but did not confer the mandates on any state, because an Inter-Allied Commission was going to Ottoman Asia to find out what the wishes of the indigenous groups were on the subject.


 * The San Remo Conference awarded the mandates, but there was a disagreement between the parties, Italy, France, etc., over their own interests. Those had to be resolved before the Council of the League of Nations could ratify the terms of the Mandates. The Mandates took the form of LoN resolutions which could only be adopted on the basis of unanimity (each of the parties had a veto).


 * The Treaty of Sevres contained the Ottoman terms of cession, but it was never ratified because of the Turkish revolution. The Italians and French came to terms over Syria and the Council of the League approved the mandates in 1922, since the Allies were already governing the territories under the Armistice of Mudros. The 1923 Treaty of Lausanne didn't contain any details about the mandates. It simply said that the territories, islands, and etc. had been detached from the Ottoman Empire by the present treaty - and that the details regarding their disposition would be arranged by the parties concerned. harlan (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The Ottoman Empire accepted the treaty of Sevres
The Ottoman empire accepted the treaty of Sevres in disposition of the Sanjak of Jerusalem and parts of the velayet of Beirut. Neither of these territories were ever claimed by the new state of Turkey. There are possibly valid political points for bending over so far backwards, but wikipedia doesn't need to get into that kind of thinking. 108.65.0.169 (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable source and undue section
The book "Foundations of the International Legal Rights of the Jewish People and the State of Israel" is obviously a book written by an activist and not even close to being a reliable source. In case that isn't blindingly obvious, the book is self-published. The publisher is Creation House, which describes itself as a Christian self-publishing company, in other words a vanity press. Wallace also wrote another book, "Don't miss the Rapture" that also looks like a barrel of laughs. No thank you. Zerotalk 09:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I also tagged the section about the "celebrations" a few activists organised in San Remo on the 90th anniversary. The intro of the section says "the town of San Remo marked the 90th anniversary", which is not even supported by the source (it only says the mayor attended). The information is trivial and the pronouncements made are predictable and boring. Zerotalk 09:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree on both issues. The "anniversary celebrations" section would be more honestly titled "Israeli public diplomacy" - But the only sources we have are a couple of news reports documenting public diplomacy events its barely noteworthy as news outside Israel and this is not the news, we do not document every little event that has been reported in national news media. Dlv999 (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Geez, you make it sound like this person is a creationist or something. However her background: "Dr. Cynthia Day Wallace received her PhD in international law from Cambridge University. Dr. Wallace’s international law career spans some thirty years, and she has held academic and senior diplomatic-level posts, including Deputy Executive Director, Investment Negotiation Program, International Law Institute, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington DC; Senior Fellow and Project Director, International Business and Economics Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington DC (“think tank”); and Senior Advisor to the Executive Secretary, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, Geneva. With more than thirty publications, including six books, she is the recipient of the Grotius International Law Award for a law journal article selected jointly by the UN Association and the T.M.C. Asser Institute of The Hague. She is a US citizen and resides in Geneva, Switzerland." We do not assume that every Christian or Jew with pro-Israel views is 'obviously' an activist. By this thinking you couldn't use any information gleaned from anyone who is published by the Institute for Palestine Studies, as it is obviously activist. Ridingdog (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The Founding Document of Eretz Israel/Palestine
{{collapse|

To whom it may concern:

hi, I have not been aware of the possibility to discuss changes of articles on Wikipedia, this is why I merely uploaded my addition after it was deleted.

I do not wish to delete any of the already existing parts of the article, but to add the findings of Howard Grief and Dr. Jacques Gauthier. Please note that: First, I clearly mark my addition as an opinion represented by these two men, which is a critique of mainstream views on this issue. However, as an avid Wikipedia user myself, I know that it is common practice in Wikipedia articles to include sections where awareness for different points of view is raised.

Secondly, in the "Anniversary Celebrations" section of the article, it is already mentioned that Dr. Jacques Gauthier stresses the fundamental importance of this Conference for the foundation of Palestine, Syria and Mesopotamia. I merely wish to expand on this, as should be in the interest of any intelligent and open-minded person.

Third, my contribution to the article does not solely focus on the issue of Eretz Israel/Palestine, it offers further information about the decision making of that era and its repercussions for the conflict in general. These issues are still widely underrepresented in Wikipedia.

I am aware of the fact that my contribution to the article is not yet perfectly cited and interlinked with other Wikipedia articles, but my personal experience in editing Wiki-articles (history section of Maccabi Tel Aviv Basketball Club) has taught me that Wikipedia consists of the work of thousands of people who complement each others work.

In this spirit, I ask you to allow me to add a base for this article, so that others might add to it, instead of just deleting it and thus keeping this information from others.

These are the additions I wish to make:

After 25 years of research, lawyers Howard Grief and Dr. Jacques Gauthier have come to the conclusion that the San Remo Conference in general and the San Remo Resolution in particular constitute the foundation documents of the modern State of Israel under international law.

April 24, 1920: The Balfour Declaration becomes a legal document
The San Remo Conference took place from April 18, to April 26, 1920. It's goal was to decide upon the future fate of all of Turkey’s ex-territorial possessions lying outside Anatolia, which, as a consequence of World War I, had ceased to be under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire, as laid out in the Treaty of Versailles.

The San Remo Conference constitutes the first acknowledgement and recognition under modern international law, of the legal title of the Jewish People to the mandated territory of Palestine, in all of its historical parts and dimensions. This decision was made by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers (France, Great Britain, Italy and Japan; USA as an observer). The Principal allied Powers gave their approval to the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917, thereby giving international legal effect to its provisions. This act constituted a conversion of the Balfour Declaration from a mere statement of British government policy, into a binding legal document. This is further evidenced by the significant change in the nature and wording of Britain’s pledge or promise to the Jewish People to establish in Palestine a national home for the Jewish People: (November 2, 1917: “their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of the object” April 24, 1920: “responsible for putting into effect” this declared object.)

Henceforth the Balfour Declaration was to constitute and become the legal and constitutional basis for administering Palestine, in conjunction with the general provisions of the newly-established Mandates System created by Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant.

Origin of the Name Palestine
The Christian and Zionist provenance of the name Palestine stems from the common denotation of the region as Palestine, the Holy Land and/or Judea to denote the Land where Jesus was born among Christians. At the First Zionist Congress in August 1897, the Zionists adopted the Basle Program themselves using the name Palestine, in order to appeal to the Christian world. On July 1917, the term Palestine was included in the Zionist formula of the Balfour Declaration. After April 1920 Palestine became the official name of the country where the Jewish National Home and Jewish State would be established. The British military and civil administration rendered this name in Hebrew in all legal documents and postage stamps as Palestina followed by the letters aleph, yod in brackets (for Eretz Yisrael, giving it an official status.

Synonymy of Eretz Israel and Palestine
The establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine simultaneously meant creating the state and country of Palestine. Palestine in its entirety was reserved exclusively for the self-determination of the Jewish People. The Foreign Secretary f the Great Britain, Lord Curzon stated: “Palestine was in the future to be the National Home of the Jews throughout the world." France based its objection to inserting the Balfour Declaration in the Peace Treaty with Turkey precisely on the ground that doing so meant the actual establishment of a Jewish State which it strongly opposed but which it implicitly conceded to be the case after it was agreed by the Supreme Council to insert an obligatory version of the Balfour Declaration into the Treaty of Sèvres.

Those two new entities in international law (Palestine and Eretz Israel/the Jewish National Home) were therefore synonymous since they were both created at the very same time for the very same purpose. The Jewish National Home was to be housed in Palestine and Palestine was to be the Jewish National Home, i.e., the Jewish State, otherwise Palestine would never have been legally created on April 25, 1920 as a separate country. France insisted on maintaining “existing traditional rights” of the French and Latin Catholic Community in Palestine while adding “civil” and/or “political” rights to the rights awarded to the “existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” of the Catholic religious community. Catholics in general and France in particular felt strong political and religious ties with Palestine because of the Crusades. It is important to understand that political rights meant individual electoral rights and not collective political rights. This ruled out any kind of national autonomy or self-determination for the Arabs living in Palestine.

Thus, in the Draft Resolution concerning Mesopotamia, Palestine and Syria the title of sovereignty over Palestine was exclusively vested in the Jewish People.

April 25, 1920: Britain to be the Mandatory Power
A mandate was conferred upon Great Britain for reconstituting the Jewish National Home in Palestine for an ancient nation most of whose members lived outside Palestine and only for that specific objective.

The boundaries of Palestine were to be based on the biblical formula „from Dan to Beersheba“ based on the historical connection of the Jewish People with the entire Land of Israel, referring to the Promised Land that had been conquered, settled and ruled by the Twelve Tribes of Israel and their descendants, in both the First and Second Temple periods. The eventual demarcation of the boundaries of both Syria and Palestine was delayed and finally taken care of at the Franco-British Boundary Convention of December 23, 1920, as were the boundaries of Mesopotamia and Syria. The historical formula, “from Dant to Beersheba” was thrice agreed upon previously by Britain and France: the Lloyd George-Clemenceau agreement of December 1, 1918, the British aide-memoire dated September 13, 1919 (Anglo French negotiations at Deauville) and the London Conference on February 21, 1920

The San Remo Resolution
The Draft Resolution was approved on April 25, 1920 and adopted Final Resolution concerning Mesopotamia, Palestine and Syria, constituting a document referred to as San Remo Resolution. This Resolution in regard to Palestine stands on its own merit as an act of basic international law which was the legal source of British power of government in Palestine under the Mandates System. The San Remo Resolution is referred to as the “Mandates Article” in the Treaty of Peace with Turkey (Treaty of Sèvres of August 10, 1920). Furthermore, this very same name has been applied to Article 22 of the League of Nations.

By virtue of the San remo Resolution, the title of sovereignty over Palestine was exclusively vested in the Jewish People. In addition the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement of May 1916 was officially replaced and terminated in addition with all other secret and illegal British Treaties from 1915-17: the Constantinople Agreement of March-April 1915 with France and Russia, the Treaty of London of April 26, 1915 with France and Italy, the McMahon Pledge made to the Sherif of Mecca, Hussein Ibn-Ali, on October 24, 1915, the Sykes-Picot Treaty of May 9 and 16, 1916 subsequently adhered to by Russia and the Agreement of Saint Jean de Maurienne of April 1917 with France and Italy.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement was further repudiated by virtue of the Covenant of the League of Nations in the Treaty of Versailles of June 28, 1919. Article 18 states the repudiation of secret diplomacy as confirmed by virtue of the United Nations Charter (Article 102). Furthermore, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 requires treaties to be transmitted to th Secretariat of the United Nations for registration and publication (Article 80).

The San Remo Resolution on Palestine named the Jewish People as the national beneficiary of the principle of self-determination in the Mandate Charter, for the purpose of applying the general provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The dual or joint application of the Balfour Declaration with Artcile 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations meant that Palestine was reserved for the Jewish People as a whole (estimated 14.000.000), not merely fot the approximately 60.000 Jews living in Palestine at the end of the Great War. Nor was Palestine reserved for the estimated half-million Arabs then living there, even though they compromised the great majority of the relatively small population of the country.

Thus the Jewish People were given a recognized international status by becoming the beneficiary of the right of national independence under Article 22 in conjunction with the Balfour Declaration. The Arabs were mentioned only once in the English version of the minutes (though not in the French version) by Lord Curzon in regard to safeguarding the rights of religious minorities under the first proviso of the Balfour Declaration that applied to the existing non Jewish communities in Palestine. It is thus clear that non-Jewish in this context centered on religious communities only and did not deal with national communities. Thus is may justly be assumed that Lord Curzon referred to Moslems, rather than Arabs.

Jewish De Jure Sovereignty over Palestine
As a direct result of naming the Jewish People as the national beneficiary of the mandate for Palestine and basing the future administration of the country upon both the Balfour Declaration and Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant, de jure sovereignty or legal title over Palestine was implicitly transferred to the Jewish People by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers who acted as the disposing agent under international law, by virtue of their military victory over the Central Powers. The Jewish People received this devolution of sovereignty or legal title from the very same source that the inhabitants from Syria and Mesopotamia also received it, by the considered decision of the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers. No valid complaint can therefore be seriously made by Arab spokesmen that the Supreme Council had no right to grant the Jewish people what it also granted to the new Arab states who were, in fact, the greatest recipients of Allied munificence.

Once international law in the form of the San Remo Resolution recognized that de jure sovereignty over all regions of historical Palestine and the Land of Israel had been vested in the Jewish People, neither the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers, nor the Council of the League of Nations nor its successor, the United Nations could or can thereafter revoke or alter Jewish sovereignty by a new decision. Legal ownership or title to Palestine had been permanently transferred to the Jewish People and any right the Principal Allied Powers previously had in regard to this country had disappeared after its official creation. In the case of the League of Nations, it never had any right in its Covenant to deprive the Jewish People of its sovereignty over any part of Palestine, the designated Jewish State under Mandate. Nor does the United Nations possess this right in its Charter. If either of these bodies really had such a right in regard to Palestine and the Land of Israel, the sovereignty of every state in the world over its own territory would be put in jeopardy.

The San Remo Resolution on Palestine is the base document upon which the Mandate for Palestine was constructed and to which it had to conform.

The San Remo Resolution on Palestine is the foundation document of the State of Israel, the legal existence of which is directly traceable from that document and not, as commonly believed, from the U.N. General Assembly Partition Resolution of November 29, 1947.

The Aftermath
The Insertion of the San Remo Resolution in the Treaty of Sèvres took place on August 10, 1920 as agreed upon at the Conference of San Remo. This was followed up by the insertion of the San Remo Resolution in the Preamble of the Mandate Charter.

On December 23, 1920, the Franco-British Boundary Convention and Demarcation Agreement finally solidified the borders of Palestine and Syria.

The Mandate Charter was approved on June 1922 by 52 nations and by all additional nations that subsequently joined the League of Nations

In 1923, the Treaty of Sèvres was replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne, which did not mention the San Remo Resolution specifically. Because it was an independent act of binding international law, the San Remo Resolution on Palestine was not diminished in any way by this fact. The San Remo Resolution remained as a binding legal document standing on its own merit, because it was encapsulated into the first three recitals of the Preamble of the Mandate for Palestine, and was reinforced by the Franco-British Boundary Convention of December 23, 1920, which delineated the original borders in what was meant to be the Jewish State of Palestine. In this context, the San Remo Resoluton is an inter-Allied agreement between the four Principal Allied Powers that created the modern Middle East. Its status as an independent act of international law that was not merely one of the Articles of the Treaty of Sèvres is further evidenced by the fact that it contained two provisions not found in any other document: First, the naming of the Mandatory Powers for the three Middle Eastern Mandates concerning which the Treaty of Sèvres is silent. Second, the right accorded to Italy to refuse to approve the terms of those Mandates

The San Remo Resolution in Regard to Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Syria was executed in full. The tragedy of the Jewish People in the ensuing years after the Resolution’s adoption resulted from the fact that it was decapitated in practice, by successive Governments of Great Britain who distorted it beyond recognition and failed to properly carry out its true meaning in accordance with the international legal obligations they had undertaken.

Foreign Secretary of Great Britain Lord Curzon reiterated the importance of the San Remo Resolution when he stated publicly: "The San Remo Resolution on Palestine is the Magna Charta of the Zionists."

Ultimate Deception
Lord Curzon subsequently turned down Chaim Weimanns request to insert a clause in the Preamble of the Mandate for Palestine which would have explicitly recognized the historical connection of the Jewish People with Palestine, as he thought nothing more to be required.

Lord Curzon was not loyal to his own words, while Chaim Weizmann did not fully grasp the true meaning of the San Remo Resolution. The only Zionist leader at the time who properly understood the natural consequences of the legal recognition of the Balfour Declaration in the San Remo Resolution was U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Louis Dembitz Brandeis. He realized that the political and legal battle to obtain the Charter of Freedom which was the central goal of Herzlian Zionism had been won and that practical measures could now be taken by the Zionist Movement to re-build the ancient Jewish State and Homeland, concentrating mainly on economic policy and promoting investments to make the Jews of Palestine self-reliant and self-supporting. He saw no further need for more political action in the international arena to secure over again what had just been so marvelously secured by the extraordinary efforts of Weizmann and many others, including Brandeis himself. He clashed with Weizman and his supporters who wanted the Zionist Movement to continue unabated its political work, as if the San Remo Resolution, the crowning achievement of pre-State Zionism, never existed. Brandeis thought that such work should be left principally in the hands of the Jewish community in Palestine. When Weizmann’s view gained the upper hand, Brandeis withdrew in 1921 from the ranks of leadership of both American and world Zionism. Thus the brilliant legal mind of Brandeis was subsequently absent in Zionist counsels when it was most needed to defeat ignoble British attempts to undermine Jewish legal rights and title of sovereignty over Palestine that began immediately after the San Remo Resolution was adopted by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers, due to changes in government.

The minutes in English of the San Remo Peace Conference for the sessions hold on April 24 and 25, 1920 were not published until 1958, which left most historians in the dark about the true meaning and ultimate consequences of that meeting. In addition, the Treaty of Sèvres which incorporated the San Remo Resolution, never entered into legal force as a ratified treaty. By contrast, the Treaty of Lausanne which was subsequently ratified, did not mention the San Remo Resolution in particular, simply stating that "all previous agreements to these territories ought to be respected."

British refusal to implement the San Remo Resolution according to what it really meant in regard to Palestine led to its de facto erasure as an independent act of international law. However, this does not change the fact that the San Remo Resolution on Palestine constitutes the preeminent foundation document of the State of Israel under modern international law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maccabipage (talk • contribs) 10 June 2013


 * Reply. We don't fill Wikipedia articles with fringe theories, and we don't use Wikipedia for political promotion.  The above is not even close to acceptable, as it violates practically every key Wikipedia policy, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:SOAPBOX, etc etc.  A simple illustration: the Treaty of Lausanne which was subsequently ratified, did not mention the San Remo Resolution in particular, simply stating that "all previous agreements to these territories ought to be respected." In fact no such words appear in the Lausanne treaty and it even says the opposite: "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned" (Art 16, my emphasis). In other words it allows the Western powers to do what they want with the former Turkish territories and does not seek to constrain them.   Incidentally we don't use article talk pages to promote fringe theories either and after allowing a little time for discussion I'm going to delete it. Putting it into the article will get you blocked almost surely.  Zerotalk 00:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

}}

SInce Maccabipage has been topic banned, its long nonsense posting and my reply are collapsed. Zerotalk 02:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

map
There needs to be a map that shows the division of the land, specifically the region of west Palestine.--Jane955 (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Which division? Do you refer to the geographical areas later assigned to the Mandates? What do you mean by "west Palestine"? Selfstudier (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As the article says "The boundaries of the three territories were left unspecified". Most of the borders shown on your map did not exist at the time of the San Remo conference and were not defined by the conference. So the map is unacceptable. Zerotalk 12:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/map-of-jewish-national-home-determined-by-san-remo-conference-1920 Batsquatch (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:RSP JVL is classed "generally unreliable".Selfstudier (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

JVL is not "generally unreliable", that article was inaccurate. Jordan has an established border and so did the Syria mandate and Egypt, meaning everywhere Israel bordered was established. Batsquatch (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry but what you just wrote is absolute nonsense. In just one sentence you have made so many mistakes I don't know where to begin. If you don't want to trust this article, try reading the underlying sources. They are scholarly sources of the highest quality. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There was a recent RFC on JVL (see the link I gave you) and as far as WP is concerned, JVL is unreliable.Selfstudier (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Quite hypocritical of you to say that what I've just wrote is absolute nonsense, when you yourself have made that same mistake. It's explicitly in the Balfour declaration that they supported the creation of Israel in all of mandate Palestine, which Jordan was in. There are plenty of books written by actual historian's that you can read that back up what I've said. Batsquatch (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Balfour declaration says nothing about creating a state, nothing about "all of Palestine", nothing about boundaries, and nothing about the mandate system which didn't even exist yet. Zerotalk 07:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

A bit messy
Over time this article seems to have become very messy and disjointed so I am going to tidy it up a bit. Anyone wants to join in, feel free.Selfstudier (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Better file
I created the "File:Minutes_of_the_1920_Conference_of_San_Remo.pdf" which is better than the actual djvu one. As I am not allowed to edit this page, do it if you please.Valp (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Let's have a looksee, [File:Minutes_of_the_1920_Conference_of_San_Remo.pdf]Selfstudier (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Looks OK, let me put it in.Selfstudier (talk) 11:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comes out back to front, ah well, not to worry.Selfstudier (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced additions
This was recently added to the article, without any supporting sources: "Under Article 22 of the British government was charged with recognizing the Arabs of Palestine, like other "communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire" as having "reached a stage of development where their existence as [an] independent nation can be provisionally recognized", and with rendering to these Arabs "administrative advice and assistance until such time as they are able to stand alone" . The source at the end of these new additions does not mention Arabs, at all, but refers to Jews. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Struck comment by, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See and Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger   talk   16:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Let me look into that, I am pretty sure that Article 22 itself has nothing to do with either Jew or Arab but some of those phrases do ring a bell.Selfstudier (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I edited out the obvious errors (ie that its only the Arabs) and reworked it a bit, I have proper sources and I will put them in tomorrow and finish tidying up the material. K?Selfstudier (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Think it's OK now?Selfstudier (talk) 09:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * :: The explicit word "Arabs" was not mentioned in Article 22. There was a reference to "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire" which were deemed to have "reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized". So, who were these communities in Palestine? You can assume that they were everybody who lived in Palestine under Ottoman rule and who were there when General Allenby's Army arrived in 1917. These were a population of about 90% Arabs and 10% Jews. So, under Article 22, these 90% Arabs and 10% Jews were supposed to be provisionally recognized as an independent nation, and the British were supposed to render administrative help to this nation to get to the point where it could stand alone, at which point the British were supposed to declare that their task was achieved and happily depart. But according to the Balfour Declaration the British were also supposed to actively help the creation of the Jewish National Home, which meant that they were supposed to help and facilitate a great influx of Jews into the country who had not lived there under Ottoman rule and who were therefore not part of the "independent nation" which was provisionally recognized under article 22. How many additional Jews were supposed to come in? The Zionist Movement explicitly set the aim of making Jews the majority in the country. And also once the Jewish National Home was firmly established, the British were supposed to declare that their task was achieved and happily depart. So, the British Mandate was given the double task of: 1) Recognizing provisionally an independent nation composed of 90% Arabs and 10% Jews and help this nation achieve complete independence and 2) Actively facilitating and promoting a great influx of Jews into the country and helping these Jews create a Jewish National Home (possibly incorporating the Jews who were there under the Ottomans into the "Jewish National Home" and detaching them from the "Article 22 provisionally recognized independent nation"). Anyway, it should have been obvious to everyone, already then, that these two tasks entrusted to the British Mandate were mutually incompatible - and it is certainly obvious in retrospect. I think all this is clear common sense. Since there are so many books written about this subject, I am also sure I can find a respectable source saying it, but I admit at moment I don't have one at my fingertips, so the page had best remain as it is now. But at lease here in the talk page, I think it deserves to be written in this explicit way.Captain Sir Mansfield George Smith-Cumming, KCMG, CB (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * OR is allowed in talk pages :) But best avoid a soapbox accusation. This mashup of documents is a nice little tangle that the UN decided to avoid in favor of a political course of action.Selfstudier (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2021
The line saying the "Conference was attended by the 4 principal allied powers France, Britain, Italy and Japan" should be changed to "4 Allied Powers attended the conference France, Britain, Italy, and Japan" because Japan is not a principal allied power in WW1 and olnly played a minor role. Grahammydoodle (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: According to Allies of World War I, Japan is listed as a principal in the infobox. Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * It's more complicated because the conference minutes refer to the conference as "Meeting of the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers", which may not be the same as "Principal Allied Powers". Japan is included. Also the USA is listed as joining the Supreme Council during the meeting. I'll ping who knows about this stuff. Zerotalk 01:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, though its relevance here can be discussed, the Principal Allied Powers listed in the Treaty of Sèvres are "the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan". Zerotalk 01:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This was all an outgrowth of the Paris Peace Conference, where the legal definition of Principal Allies came from. See the Treaty of Versailles: TREATY OF PEACE BETWEEN THE ALLIED AND ASSOCIATED POWERS AND GERMANY …THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE BRITISH EMPIRE, FRANCE, ITALY AND JAPAN, these Powers being described in the present Treaty as the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, BELGIUM, BOLIVIA, BRAZIL, CHINA, CUBA, ECUADOR, GREECE, GUATEMALA, HAITI, THE HEDJAZ, HONDURAS, LIBERIA, NICARAGUA, PANAMA, PERU, POLAND, PORTUGAL, ROUMANIA, THE SERB-CROAT-SLOVENE STATE, SIAM, CZECHOSLOVAKIA AND URUGUAY, these Powers constituting with the Principal Powers mentioned above the Allied and Associated Powers.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 08:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: Closing request while under discussion, per template instructions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)