The Debate over British Reparations for Mandate-Era Governance of Palestine? Three views

As reparations are being demanded from more former colonial powers, Britain is in the crosshairs for Palestine, given the century-long conflict that has resulted. According to the view most commonly found in historical and legal literature, no reparation is required, because Britain acted in accordance with decisions made by the League of Nations. According to two more recently expressed views, reparation is in order. By the first of these, Britain is said to have acted indeed under League decisions, except for implementation of the Balfour Declaration, which, it is said, violated the League’s Covenant, hence was unlawful even though endorsed by the League. According to a third view, reparation is in order because the entire British project in Palestine rested on faulty institutional and legal premises. A state seeking to hold a mandate had first to acquire title to the relevant territory from the existing sovereign, which in the case of Palestine was Turkey. Britain never gained title from Turkey, hence never gained a mandate. Britain’s administration of Palestine deprived the population of self-rule and left it open to the mass expulsion it suffered in 1948. As a result, reparation is in order.