Some sources have revealed that the real motive behind Britain not recognizing the Palestinian state, despite the British House of Commons' decision to do so, is the existence of substantial financial liabilities owed to Palestine since the mandate period. These sources explained that the Mandate Charter issued by the League of Nations in 1922 granted Britain guardianship over Palestine in all administrative, political, and military matters. There was a civilian administration under the supervision of the British High Commissioner, which included the Palestinian Currency Board, acting as a central bank, and issued the first Palestinian pound with the approval of the Mandate authority, ensuring it was backed by an equal amount of gold.
They added that Palestine’s balance on May 15, 1948, was around 138 million pounds. Before the end of the mandate, Britain froze all the Palestinian Currency Board's funds under a law known as the "British Financial Defense Act," equivalent to a thousand tons of gold, which were sent to London. Experts estimate the current value of these funds to be around $70-80 billion, while their cumulative value over 72 years of seizure exceeds $6 trillion!
The deposits of the Palestinian Currency Board remain in Britain, awaiting the existence of a legal successor to the Government of Palestine. If Britain recognizes the Palestinian state, the Palestinian Authority or the entity that becomes the legal representative of the Palestinian state will become the legal successor to the Government of Palestine and the Palestinian Currency Board before 1948. Britain will then be obligated to return the Palestinian deposits with accumulated interest, or at least their value in gold, or it will face lawsuits in British and international courts, which could lead to the bankruptcy of the British treasury or, at a minimum, a financial disaster with lasting effects for years.
To gain more insight into this issue, we had this interview with international lawyer and head of the International Commission to Support Palestinian Rights (Hesham), Salah Abdul-Ati.
In light of the above, why did Britain freeze the Palestinian Currency Board’s funds?
– Britain, as a colonial state, always aimed to control the resources of the countries under its mandate. In the case of Palestine, after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Palestine came under the British mandate under the "Sykes-Picot Agreement" in 1917. Therefore, Britain took control of Palestine’s resources, including its lands, funds, and currency. Then, it issued the infamous "Balfour Declaration," which gave Palestine as a national home for the Jews, significantly contributing to this through encouraging Zionist immigration to Palestine, stripping Palestinians of their lands and giving them to Jews, and encouraging its agents among families and land brokers to sell them to Jews. It also issued a series of decisions, laws, and measures, including controlling Palestinian funds under what is known as the "Financial Defense Act," thus freezing and stealing these funds and transferring them to British banks.
What was the value of these funds at that time, and what is their estimated value today?
– These funds stolen by Britain during its mandate over Palestine and frozen amount to between 130–140 million pounds in gold, which is estimated today at around $70 billion, excluding the cumulative value over all these past years, which reaches $6 trillion.
In your opinion, what documents can be referred to as proof of these amounts?
– In fact, during the British mandate and before it, Palestine had a fully recognized central bank that issued currency backed by gold pounds deposited in British banks and documented in their balances. The reports and documents issued by these banks reveal the reality and value of these funds and balances and prove their existence. Any official entity representing the Palestinian people has the right to obtain and review them at any time.
As a legal and international expert, do you believe this information is accurate? What are its legal implications?
– Certainly, all sequential reports of the Palestinian central bank at the time indicate this and show that Britain stole and froze these funds. This information requires legal and judicial follow-up not only because Britain issued the "Balfour Declaration" and what it did, including stealing Palestinian lands and funds, facilitating the establishment of the Jewish national home on Palestinian land, and supporting Zionist gangs. This matter requires turning to international courts to recover these funds.
Regarding its legal implications, international law, in a clear agreement in 1983, confirmed that newly independent states should receive all their movable and immovable property present after independence, even outside the colonized country. International law guarantees the principle of state succession, whether in international treaties or properties, rights, and debts. There is a clear text in Article 15 of the International Convention on the Succession of States regarding property, which says: "The newly independent state shall have all the ownership of real estate and other movable and immovable properties controlled by the colonizing state."
Given these international laws that guarantee the rights of looted states, what are the ways and means to recover them?
– Regarding the ways and means that developing countries that were colonized can follow to obtain their financial rights and debts according to Article 33 of the United Nations Charter, they include diplomatic means, resorting to a strong allied mediator to apply some pressure and bring closer views, applying political and economic pressures, and resorting to international arbitration and specialized international courts in resolving disputes.
Do you believe this is the main reason Britain does not recognize the Palestinian state, or are there other reasons?
– The issue of the funds, their theft, and freezing is one of the factors and reasons for Britain's lack of recognition of the Palestinian state. However, there are many other reasons and factors, including the continued dominance and colonial mentality, considering Britain the biggest contributor to the establishment of the Israeli state, and the connection of British policy with American policy, which supports the occupation state that refuses to recognize the rights of the Palestinian people.
Didn’t the "Oslo Agreement" recognize the Palestinian National Authority? So why doesn't President Abbas demand these rights?
– The truth is that I express my astonishment at the Palestinian Authority and its president not demanding these funds. They have the legal right to do so, as most countries in the world recognize them as the legitimate and sole representative of the Palestinian people. Therefore, these funds have become due under this and must be demanded. Moreover, the Palestinian Authority and Abbas personally should demand all the properties Britain retained from the Palestinian people since the mandate, including archives and records.
What crises would Britain face if it returned these funds?
– Whatever crises Britain faces as a result, even if it goes bankrupt or faces a severe financial crisis in return, this does not negate the Palestinian right, neither by limitation nor due to the harm it would cause. These funds are a legitimate right of the Palestinian people. Britain and similar colonial countries built themselves and solved their crises at the expense of the resources and wealth of the countries they occupied.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Read this Article in Arabic
