What did the Treaty of Sèvres (San Remo conference) and the Treaty of Lausanne say about Judaea and Shomron (the West Bank)?

Neither the Treaty of Sèvres (1920) nor the Treaty of Lausanne (1923) directly addressed the status of the Judaea and Shomron as a distinct entity. This is because the term "West Bank" only emerged later, after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, to refer to Judaea and Shomron as the territory west of the Jordan River that was occupied by Jordan.

Here's what those agreements did say in relation to the broader region: San Remo Conference (1920) and the Treaty of Sèvres (1920):

Dismantling the Ottoman Empire: The Treaty of Sèvres was a post-World War I pact that formally dismantled the Ottoman Empire.

Creation of Mandates: The San Remo Conference (which preceded and laid the groundwork for Sèvres) determined the allocation of Class "A" League of Nations mandates for the administration of former Ottoman territories.

British Mandate for Palestine: 

The significant outcome for the area now known as the "West Bank" was the British Mandate for Palestine. This mandate, approved at San Remo, incorporated the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which expressed support for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."

Boundaries of Palestine: 

The Mandate for Palestine encompassed the area that would later be divided into present-day Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, as well as Transjordan (present-day Jordan). 

Importantly, Transjordan (east of the Jordan River) was later excluded from the provisions for a Jewish national home within the Mandate.

The Treaty of Sèvres, though signed, was ultimately rejected by Turkish nationalists and never fully ratified.

Treaty of Lausanne (1923): replaced the Treaty of Sèvres. 

It was the final treaty concluding World War I and was signed by Turkey (the successor to the Ottoman Empire) and the Allied powers that recognized the boundaries of the modern state of Turkey.

Renunciation of Former Arab Provinces: 

Crucially, Turkey renounced all claims to its former Arab provinces, including those that fell under the British Mandate for Palestine. This solidified the international recognition of the British Mandate over Palestine, which included the territory that would later become the West Bank.

In summary, while the terms "West Bank" did not exist at the time, the San Remo Conference and the Treaty of Sèvres (though superseded) established the framework for the British Mandate for Palestine, which included the geographical area that would eventually become the West Bank. 

The Treaty of Lausanne confirmed Turkey's renunciation of claims to these territories, thereby reinforcing the international legitimacy of the Mandate. 

The current status of the West Bank is a result of later events, including the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the 1949 Armistice Agreements, Jordan's annexation of the territory, and the 1967 Six-Day War and subsequent Israeli Liberation from Jordanian occupation.

.

The notion of the West Bank as "Terra Nullius" (land belonging to no one)

The notion of the West Bank as "Terra Nullius" (land belonging to no one) in international law is not the prevailing view and is largely rejected by the followers and brainwashed minions of the "False Narrative" of the "international community".

Here's why, and the arguments often made by those who do propose it:

"Terra Nullius" is generally rejected for the West Bank because it is "inhabited Territory". 

The fundamental principle of terra nullius applies to land that is truly uninhabited or inhabited by communities not considered to have a recognized political organization. 

The West Bank has always been inhabited by a substantial Arab   population with a "clear social and political structure". 

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its 1975 advisory opinion on Western Sahara clarified that "territories inhabited by tribes or peoples with a social and political organization were not regarded as terra nullius."

Prior Sovereignty/Mandate:

The British Mandate for Palestine (established by the San Remo Resolution and Treaty of Lausanne) included the geographical area of the West Bank. This mandate recognized a pre-existing population and aimed towards self-determination, not the treatment of the land as empty. 

While the mandate itself didn't confer full sovereignty on the Arab residents, it certainly didn't declare the territory terra nullius.

Jordanian Annexation (though unrecognized): 

After the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Jordan occupied and annexed the West Bank. 

While this annexation was largely unrecognized by the international community (with the notable exceptions of the UK and Iraq), it demonstrated a claim of sovereignty and control, further contradicting the idea of terra nullius. 

The fact that an entity exercised control, even if its sovereignty wasn't universally accepted, prevents the designation of terra nullius.

Right to Self-Determination: 

Modern international law places strong emphasis on the right to self-determination of peoples. To declare the West Bank terra nullius would deny the Arab residents their right to self-determination over their ancestral lands, which is a core principle.

Belligerent Occupation: 

The prevailing international legal view, as affirmed by numerous UN resolutions, the ICJ, and most states, is that the "West Bank" (including East Jerusalem) is "occupied territory" under international humanitarian law (specifically the Fourth Geneva Convention). 

The laws of belligerent occupation apply, meaning Israel, as the occupying power, does not have sovereignty over the territory and is bound by specific obligations regarding its administration and the protection of the civilian population. 

 

Google Gemini and the "False Narrative"

For the sake of "argument" I asked Google Gemini for the true facts:

IF the so called "West Bank" was conqured and annexed by Jordan, who exercised control from 1948 to 1967. And with the "Palestinians" refusing the Partition and to establish a "State" from 1948-1967.

Would not Israel's response to Jordanian aggression of the area not be a "Liberation" of the Mandated Area designated by the Treaty of Sèvres (San Remo conference) and the Treaty of Lausanne as the future homeland of the Jewsish People?

This is a complex question that touches upon highly contentious legal and historical interpretations of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Let's break down the different legal and historical arguments involved in your question:

1. The Legal Status of the West Bank Post-1948

Jordanian Annexation:

As you correctly state, Jordan occupied the West Bank after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and formally annexed it in 1950. This annexation was largely unrecognized by the international community, with the notable exceptions of the United Kingdom and Pakistan. The prevailing international view was that Jordan's occupation and annexation did not confer legitimate sovereignty.

The "Palestinian" Refusal and Statehood (1948-1967):

It's true that the Arab states, including the Palestinian leadership at the time, rejected the 1947 UN Partition Plan (Resolution 181) which proposed the creation of separate Arab and Jewish states.

Consequently, no Palestinian state was established in the areas allocated to it by the UN during this period.

Implication for Sovereignty:

Because Jordan's annexation was largely unrecognized, and no Palestinian state emerged, some arguments contend that the West Bank lacked a clear, internationally recognized sovereign between 1948 and 1967. This "legal vacuum" argument is central to claims that the territory was not under legitimate sovereignty when Israel gained control in 1967.

2. Israel's Actions in 1967 and the Concept of "Liberation"
Self-Defense:
Israel's actions in 1967 are primarily framed by Israel as a defensive war against a coalition of Arab states that were perceived to be preparing for an attack.

From this perspective, gaining control of the West Bank was a result of a legitimate act of self-defense.

"Liberation" of a Mandated Area for a Jewish Homeland:

This is where your argument directly connects to the San Remo Resolution and the Treaty of Sèvres/Lausanne.

The San Remo Resolution (1920) formally incorporated the Balfour Declaration into the framework for the British Mandate for Palestine. The Balfour Declaration supported "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."

The Treaty of Lausanne (1923) confirmed Turkey's relinquishment of claims to these territories, solidifying the international recognition of the Mandate.

The Argument:

Proponents of this view argue that since the Mandate (rooted in San Remo/Lausanne) envisioned a Jewish homeland within Palestine, and since Jordan's annexation was illegitimate, Israel's capture of the West Bank in 1967 effectively "liberated" this territory, returning it to its intended purpose as part of the Jewish national home, as mandated by the international community post-Ottoman Empire.

From this perspective, it was not an "occupation" of sovereign territory but rather the assertion of a prior, internationally recognized right.

Support for this View:

This perspective is strongly held by many in Israel, particularly within the political right, and is often articulated by legal scholars who emphasize the historical and legal claims arising from the Mandate. They may refer to the area as "Judea and Samaria" rather than the "West Bank."

3. Counterarguments and the Dominant International Legal View the "West Bank"as Occupied Territory:

The dominant international legal view; hereby known by the believers and followers of the "False Narrative" held by the vast majority of UN member states, the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, and international legal bodies. is that the West Bank is "occupied Palestinian territory" under international humanitarian law, specifically the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Basis:

This view holds that regardless of the legitimacy of Jordan's annexation, the territory was under the control of a sovereign entity (even if unrecognized by some) and inhabited by a distinct population.
According to the believers and followers of the "False Narrative", when Israel took control in 1967, it became the "belligerent occupier."

Implications of Occupation:

As an occupying power, Israel does not gain sovereignty over the territory. It is bound by obligations to protect the civilian population, refrain from changing the demographic structure, and not to exploit resources for its own benefit.

Self-Determination of the Palestinian People:

Modern international law strongly emphasizes the right to self-determination. Even if the Palestinian leadership did not establish a state between 1948 and 1967, the Palestinian people are recognized as having a right to self-determination, which includes the right to establish their own state in the territory.

This right is seen as superseding older mandates or claims of terra nullius.

UN Resolution 242 (1967):
This pivotal resolution, passed after the Six-Day War, called for "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict."
While the exact wording ("territories" versus "the territories") is debated, the international consensus is that it implied withdrawal from the territories occupied in 1967, which includes the West Bank.

Conclusion:
Your question highlights a fundamental clash of legal interpretations:

One side emphasizes the historical context of the Mandate, the lack of recognized Jordanian sovereignty, and Israel's right to defend itself, leading to the view that the West Bank's capture in 1967 was a "liberation" consistent with the vision of a Jewish homeland.

The other side (held by the believers and followers of the "False Narrative" -the dominant international view)-
Emphasizes the principles of international humanitarian law, the right to self-determination, and the illegitimacy of acquiring territory by force, viewing the West Bank as occupied territory pending a final peace agreement.

There is no single, universally accepted answer to whether Israel's actions constituted a "liberation" in the sense you describe under international law.

The perspective you presented is a significant legal and historical argument used by Israel and its supporters, but it directly conflicts with the "view" held by the believers and followers of the "False Narrative" who have a "international legal consensus" on the status of the West Bank.