Hamas rocket

[aris2chat]

Israel The Arab Truth About The Palestinian Problem

a bit long

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I don't think there has ever been a Plan of any sort in which both sides have agreed upon that came after the Agreement between Prince Faisal and Chaim Weizmann --- relative to "national aspirations."

The Royal Commission of 1936-1937

89. The Commission believed that partition on the lines they proposed, while demanding from both Arabs and Jews some sacrifice of their aspirations, bla, bla, bla.​

Why did you waste so much verbosity on the 1937 partition plan?

It was rejected by both sides and abandoned.

(COMMENT)

The discussion touched on the the various partition models considered relative to the establishment of individual Arab and Jewish states. The Royal Commission (appointed by His Majesty) raised the issue in an atmosphere of mutual compromise and cooperation towards the end-product of peace; excluding that territory unto which The King of Great Britain, gave special recognition of passing into the hands of His Highness The Emir as the sovereign of Trans-Jordan. SOURCE: Page 144 UN Treaty Series 1947

Having raised the issue and asking for the cooperation of the Arab Palestinians, as the Mandatory had asked several times before, and as history recorded several times since, there has been no plan put forth in the last 97 years (since the Ottoman Surrender, the Treaty of Mudros, and the establishment of The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration or OETA in 1918) including the Civil War, the War of Independence, the Six-Day War, and the Yom Kipper War, that the Arab Palestinians have attempted to establish peace.

There is no reasonable expectation that the world of diplomacy and democracy will recover any cooperation from the Arab Palestinian that will be a basis of a good faith effort for the establish of a meaningful peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

These are all interlocking processes. One supporting the other.

P F Tinmore, et al,

First, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne is not "Palestine" specific. In fact the language of the Treaty is not even unique. It is derivative from the language used in HM's order --- Palestine Legislative Council Election Order, 10 August 1922.

For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--

(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.

(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.​

59. For the purpose of this part of the Order the expression "foreigner" means any person who is a national or subject of a European or American State or of Japan, but shall not include:

(i) Native inhabitants of a territory protected by or administered under a mandate granted to a European State.
(ii) Ottoman subjects.
(iii) Persons who have lost Ottoman nationality and have not acquired any other nationality.
​

The Palestine Citizenship Order in Council came into force on the 1st of August 1925; a revised Immigration Ordinance has been promulgated; the Convention between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States of America relating to the treatment of American citizens in Palestine was ratified in December.

SECTION III.
QUESTIONNAIRE OF PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION,
WITH BRIEF REPLIES.
I.--JEWISH NATIONAL HOME.​

1.Q. What measures have been taken to place the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the national home of the Jewish people? What are the effects of these measures?

A. The direction and objects of the policy of the Government of Palestine in law, administration and finance are unchanged. The visible results of the policy have been tranquillity, increased Jewish immigration, progress of Jewish agricultural settlement. The expansion of industry has been encouraged by the grant of exemption of certain raw materials from import duty (see [pages ] of this Report).

The regulations under the Immigration Ordinance, 1925, set up a statutory procedure for the introduction of Jewish immigrant labour into Palestine. The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council, 1925, facilitates the acquisition of Palestinian nationality by persons settling in the country, including those who opted for Palestinian citizenship under the Palestine Legislative Council Election Order in Council, 1922. There was a remarkable development of Jewish Co-operative Societies, constituted principally for building, agricultural and mutual credit purposes. Twenty-six Jewish companies were formed.​

3.Q. What measures have been taken to bring the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will safeguard the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion? What are the effects of these measures?

A. The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council which was made in August, 1925, provides for "the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence."​

Clearly, prior to 1948, the conflict was internal.​

Is that, in fact, true? I do not believe it is. There is a question of citizenship.

International law, article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne, and the citizenship order of 1925 all agree. Those normally living in Palestine at the time of its creation had the nationality of Palestinian and were citizens of Palestine. There can be no dispute on this issue.

On the other hand, there are problems with the citizenship of those who were brought into Palestine by the World Zionist Organization. The Zionists did not import these settlers to be Palestinians but to populate their planned Jewish state. The settlers did not live with the Palestinians but in colonies served/governed by their own separate institutions. Neither the Zionists nor the settlers had any allegiance to Palestine.

There was never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians.

ALIEN
:
By contrast, an "alien" is generally understood to be a foreigner -- a person who comes from a foreign country -- who does not owe allegiance to our country.

Definitions Alien Immigrant Illegal Alien Undocumented Immigrant​

I don't see how battles between the native population and colonial settlers can be defined as a civil war.

(COMMENT)

The "the native population" and the "colonial settlers" (using your words not the correct terminology) derived their citizenship from the very same source. "The acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence."

This language is the applicable and correct terminology to use; NOT American law example you point out.

“Illegal alien” is not a legal term. An alien is defined as anyone who is not a citizen or national of the United States. However, “illegal alien” is not a legal term in the Immigration and Nationality Act. For some, the use of the term “illegal alien” is likely based on a misconception that an immigrant’s very presence in the United States is a criminal violation of the law. While the act of entering the country without inspection is a federal misdemeanor, and for repeat offenders could be a felony, the status of being present in the United States without a visa is not an ongoing criminal violation.
SOURCE:
No Human Being is Illegal: Why use of the term “illegal alien” is inaccurate, offensive, and should be eliminated from our public discourse.
by Shahid Haque-Hausrath | Feb 5, 2009 |​

In terms of the "Civil War" --- it does not matter what either side believes to be valid. After all, the outcome of the armed conflict, over the issue, will settle that. What is important is understanding the source of the "citizenship." It does not come from the Treaty, but from the Allied Powers, the Council League and the Mandatory. While the indigenous population might differ with the rulings, all the decrees, treaties, orders in council, mandates and similar legal instrumentalities all are derived from the same source; none of which are influenced by the Arab Population.

Most Respectfully,
R

What part of all this refutes anything in my post?

Particularly:

There was never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

The Order: "The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council which was made in August, 1925, provides for "the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence."

If there was "never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians" (your words not mine) then the Citizenship Order would not have further supported the Article 4 Mandate requirement that the Mandatory "shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage;" OR the Article 7 Mandate requirement for the Mandatory "to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine."

You are grasping at straws here --- trying to find some supporting documentation by the Allied Powers that would nullify the Jewish Immigrant authorization for Palestinian (territory to which the Mandate applied) Citizenship.

Both the Arab and the Jewish derive their citizenship from the same authority and power. Thus when they began to fight, they were citizen against citizen (a war between citizens of the same government - that established by the Council and Allied Powers).

Most Respectfully,
R

If there was "never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians" (your words not mine) then the Citizenship Order would not have further supported the Article 4 Mandate requirement that the Mandatory "shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage;" OR the Article 7 Mandate requirement for the Mandatory "to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine."​

Good points. What the Mandate called for and what the Zionists strived for were two different things. As you say: the Mandatory shall facilitate Jewish immigration, and facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews. The goal was a single, democratic state shared by all of its citizens. This goal was clarified by the 1939 White Paper.

The Zionists, however, pushed for a Jewish state from day one. The Palestinians opposed the Zionist project by the turn of the century. All of the revolts and riots by the Palestinians from that time were in opposition to this colonial project. That opposition continues to today.

The Zionists saw the 1939 White Paper as betraying the Mandate promise of a Jewish state that never was. They continuously worked outside the confines of the Mandate and never accepted the idea of being Palestinians and sharing the country.

Britain folded its tent and left Palestine failing to create an independent Palestinian state as called for in the LoN Covenant.

Why should we accept the premise of Jewish citizens of Palestine in the context of a "civil war" when they themselves rejected that status?

The White Paper was BEFORE the 1947 partition plan, which the 'Palestinians' accepted 41 years after it was brought up and used it as a basis to declare independence.

BTW, you act as if the 'Palestinians' wanted to share a country with all the Jews , under one government.

The Second Subcommittee, which included all the Arab and Muslim States members, issued a long report arguing that partition was illegal according to the terms of the Mandate and proposing a unitary democratic state that would protect rights of all citizens equally.

The fifth national council of the Palestine Liberation Organisation in February 1969 passed a resolution confirming that the PLO's objective was "to establish a free and democratic society in Palestine for all Palestinians whether they are Muslims, Christians or Jews".

Palestinian activist Edward Said wrote: "... after 50 years of Israeli history, classic Zionism has provided no solution to the Palestinian presence. I therefore see no other way than to begin now to speak about sharing the land that has thrust us together, sharing it in a truly democratic way with equal rights for all citizens."

One-state solution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The proposal for a unitary democratic state would not provide the necessary protection against the government persecution and discrimination directed towards the Jewish Culture. The Arabs would be able to maintain a majority that would always be able to suppress the minority Jewish Culture; it is a type of government that would not be able to protect and preserve and environment that could sustain and develop a Jewish National Home. Such a state --- governed through one single power (unity) in which the central government is ultimately very strong. This is not unlike several of the Arab Governments that have failed in the last half century, or fallen prey to severe internal strife and conflict. It is a one-state solution, but probably not the best solution given the differences between the two cultures that cannot reconcile their differences.

The Second Subcommittee, which included all the Arab and Muslim States members, issued a long report arguing that partition was illegal according to the terms of the Mandate and proposing a unitary democratic state that would protect rights of all citizens equally.

The fifth national council of the Palestine Liberation Organisation in February 1969 passed a resolution confirming that the PLO's objective was "to establish a free and democratic society in Palestine for all Palestinians whether they are Muslims, Christians or Jews".

Palestinian activist Edward Said wrote: "... after 50 years of Israeli history, classic Zionism has provided no solution to the Palestinian presence. I therefore see no other way than to begin now to speak about sharing the land that has thrust us together, sharing it in a truly democratic way with equal rights for all citizens."

One-state solution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

(COMMENT)

By attempting to flood the voter eligible population with several million more Arabs than Jewish in the demographic mix --- is merely a fraudulent attempt to over-through the Jewish State. This was well recognized and understood. The futility of this option/recommendation is made even more obvious when one looks at the success of the Fatah/HAMAS Unity Government.

One Year Since Fatah-Hamas Agreement, Unity Government Still Not Functioning​

by TheTower.org Staff | 04.28.15 6:15 pm

In April 2014, Fatah, the dominant faction in the Palestinian Authority (PA), and the terrorist organization Hamas announced the end of the longstanding and violent rift between them, which began in 2007 when Hamas staged a bloody coup to take over Gaza. Both movements announced a series of reconciliation measures. But the agreement, in addition to effectively ending American-sponsored peace negotiations, also failed to bring about a functioning government to serve Palestinian interests.

A year later, many major issues are still outstanding. Israel saw the reconciliation as antithetical to the peace process. While PA President Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah party states it supports the two-state solution, the Iran-backed terror organization Hamas is violently opposed to peace with Israel, as its stated goal is the destruction of the Jewish state and its replacement with a fundamentalist Islamic state.​

I'm not sure how reliable a pro-"Palestinian activist (Edward Said)" is in regards to the understanding of "classic Zionism;" nationalist and political movement of the Jewish culture that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory allocated by the Allied Powers and the Council.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

These are all interlocking processes. One supporting the other.

P F Tinmore, et al,

First, Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne is not "Palestine" specific. In fact the language of the Treaty is not even unique. It is derivative from the language used in HM's order --- Palestine Legislative Council Election Order, 10 August 1922.

For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--

(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.

(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.​

59. For the purpose of this part of the Order the expression "foreigner" means any person who is a national or subject of a European or American State or of Japan, but shall not include:

(i) Native inhabitants of a territory protected by or administered under a mandate granted to a European State.
(ii) Ottoman subjects.
(iii) Persons who have lost Ottoman nationality and have not acquired any other nationality.
​

The Palestine Citizenship Order in Council came into force on the 1st of August 1925; a revised Immigration Ordinance has been promulgated; the Convention between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States of America relating to the treatment of American citizens in Palestine was ratified in December.

SECTION III.
QUESTIONNAIRE OF PERMANENT MANDATES COMMISSION,
WITH BRIEF REPLIES.
I.--JEWISH NATIONAL HOME.​

1.Q. What measures have been taken to place the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the national home of the Jewish people? What are the effects of these measures?

A. The direction and objects of the policy of the Government of Palestine in law, administration and finance are unchanged. The visible results of the policy have been tranquillity, increased Jewish immigration, progress of Jewish agricultural settlement. The expansion of industry has been encouraged by the grant of exemption of certain raw materials from import duty (see [pages ] of this Report).

The regulations under the Immigration Ordinance, 1925, set up a statutory procedure for the introduction of Jewish immigrant labour into Palestine. The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council, 1925, facilitates the acquisition of Palestinian nationality by persons settling in the country, including those who opted for Palestinian citizenship under the Palestine Legislative Council Election Order in Council, 1922. There was a remarkable development of Jewish Co-operative Societies, constituted principally for building, agricultural and mutual credit purposes. Twenty-six Jewish companies were formed.​

3.Q. What measures have been taken to bring the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will safeguard the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion? What are the effects of these measures?

A. The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council which was made in August, 1925, provides for "the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence."​

(COMMENT)

The "the native population" and the "colonial settlers" (using your words not the correct terminology) derived their citizenship from the very same source. "The acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence."

This language is the applicable and correct terminology to use; NOT American law example you point out.

“Illegal alien” is not a legal term. An alien is defined as anyone who is not a citizen or national of the United States. However, “illegal alien” is not a legal term in the Immigration and Nationality Act. For some, the use of the term “illegal alien” is likely based on a misconception that an immigrant’s very presence in the United States is a criminal violation of the law. While the act of entering the country without inspection is a federal misdemeanor, and for repeat offenders could be a felony, the status of being present in the United States without a visa is not an ongoing criminal violation.
SOURCE:
No Human Being is Illegal: Why use of the term “illegal alien” is inaccurate, offensive, and should be eliminated from our public discourse.
by Shahid Haque-Hausrath | Feb 5, 2009 |​

In terms of the "Civil War" --- it does not matter what either side believes to be valid. After all, the outcome of the armed conflict, over the issue, will settle that. What is important is understanding the source of the "citizenship." It does not come from the Treaty, but from the Allied Powers, the Council League and the Mandatory. While the indigenous population might differ with the rulings, all the decrees, treaties, orders in council, mandates and similar legal instrumentalities all are derived from the same source; none of which are influenced by the Arab Population.

Most Respectfully,
R

What part of all this refutes anything in my post?

Particularly:

There was never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

The Order: "The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council which was made in August, 1925, provides for "the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence."

If there was "never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians" (your words not mine) then the Citizenship Order would not have further supported the Article 4 Mandate requirement that the Mandatory "shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage;" OR the Article 7 Mandate requirement for the Mandatory "to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine."

You are grasping at straws here --- trying to find some supporting documentation by the Allied Powers that would nullify the Jewish Immigrant authorization for Palestinian (territory to which the Mandate applied) Citizenship.

Both the Arab and the Jewish derive their citizenship from the same authority and power. Thus when they began to fight, they were citizen against citizen (a war between citizens of the same government - that established by the Council and Allied Powers).

Most Respectfully,
R

If there was "never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians" (your words not mine) then the Citizenship Order would not have further supported the Article 4 Mandate requirement that the Mandatory "shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage;" OR the Article 7 Mandate requirement for the Mandatory "to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine."​

Good points. What the Mandate called for and what the Zionists strived for were two different things. As you say: the Mandatory shall facilitate Jewish immigration, and facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews. The goal was a single, democratic state shared by all of its citizens. This goal was clarified by the 1939 White Paper.

The Zionists, however, pushed for a Jewish state from day one. The Palestinians opposed the Zionist project by the turn of the century. All of the revolts and riots by the Palestinians from that time were in opposition to this colonial project. That opposition continues to today.

The Zionists saw the 1939 White Paper as betraying the Mandate promise of a Jewish state that never was. They continuously worked outside the confines of the Mandate and never accepted the idea of being Palestinians and sharing the country.

Britain folded its tent and left Palestine failing to create an independent Palestinian state as called for in the LoN Covenant.

Why should we accept the premise of Jewish citizens of Palestine in the context of a "civil war" when they themselves rejected that status?

The White Paper was BEFORE the 1947 partition plan, which the 'Palestinians' accepted 41 years after it was brought up and used it as a basis to declare independence.

BTW, you act as if the 'Palestinians' wanted to share a country with all the Jews , under one government.

The Second Subcommittee, which included all the Arab and Muslim States members, issued a long report arguing that partition was illegal according to the terms of the Mandate and proposing a unitary democratic state that would protect rights of all citizens equally.

The fifth national council of the Palestine Liberation Organisation in February 1969 passed a resolution confirming that the PLO's objective was "to establish a free and democratic society in Palestine for all Palestinians whether they are Muslims, Christians or Jews".

Palestinian activist Edward Said wrote: "... after 50 years of Israeli history, classic Zionism has provided no solution to the Palestinian presence. I therefore see no other way than to begin now to speak about sharing the land that has thrust us together, sharing it in a truly democratic way with equal rights for all citizens."

One-state solution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And as the Palestinian charters show this meant only Jews born before 1850 would be legible to be included as Palestinian citizens, all others would be murdered. So is it any wonder the LoN dismissed this plan and refused to even discuss it. The evidence of recent activity shows that the Jews would have been ethnically cleansed and run of their land by the arab muslims carrying out their mantra of "First Saturday and then Sunday"

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I don't think there has ever been a Plan of any sort in which both sides have agreed upon that came after the Agreement between Prince Faisal and Chaim Weizmann --- relative to "national aspirations."

The Royal Commission of 1936-1937

89. The Commission believed that partition on the lines they proposed, while demanding from both Arabs and Jews some sacrifice of their aspirations, bla, bla, bla.​

Why did you waste so much verbosity on the 1937 partition plan?

It was rejected by both sides and abandoned.

(COMMENT)

The discussion touched on the the various partition models considered relative to the establishment of individual Arab and Jewish states. The Royal Commission (appointed by His Majesty) raised the issue in an atmosphere of mutual compromise and cooperation towards the end-product of peace; excluding that territory unto which The King of Great Britain, gave special recognition of passing into the hands of His Highness The Emir as the sovereign of Trans-Jordan. SOURCE: Page 144 UN Treaty Series 1947

Having raised the issue and asking for the cooperation of the Arab Palestinians, as the Mandatory had asked several times before, and as history recorded several times since, there has been no plan put forth in the last 97 years (since the Ottoman Surrender, the Treaty of Mudros, and the establishment of The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration or OETA in 1918) including the Civil War, the War of Independence, the Six-Day War, and the Yom Kipper War, that the Arab Palestinians have attempted to establish peace.

There is no reasonable expectation that the world of diplomacy and democracy will recover any cooperation from the Arab Palestinian that will be a basis of a good faith effort for the establish of a meaningful peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

Peace with justice has never been on the table.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

These are all interlocking processes. One supporting the other.

What part of all this refutes anything in my post?

Particularly:

There was never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

The Order: "The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council which was made in August, 1925, provides for "the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence."

If there was "never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians" (your words not mine) then the Citizenship Order would not have further supported the Article 4 Mandate requirement that the Mandatory "shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage;" OR the Article 7 Mandate requirement for the Mandatory "to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine."

You are grasping at straws here --- trying to find some supporting documentation by the Allied Powers that would nullify the Jewish Immigrant authorization for Palestinian (territory to which the Mandate applied) Citizenship.

Both the Arab and the Jewish derive their citizenship from the same authority and power. Thus when they began to fight, they were citizen against citizen (a war between citizens of the same government - that established by the Council and Allied Powers).

Most Respectfully,
R

If there was "never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians" (your words not mine) then the Citizenship Order would not have further supported the Article 4 Mandate requirement that the Mandatory "shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage;" OR the Article 7 Mandate requirement for the Mandatory "to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine."​

Good points. What the Mandate called for and what the Zionists strived for were two different things. As you say: the Mandatory shall facilitate Jewish immigration, and facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews. The goal was a single, democratic state shared by all of its citizens. This goal was clarified by the 1939 White Paper.

The Zionists, however, pushed for a Jewish state from day one. The Palestinians opposed the Zionist project by the turn of the century. All of the revolts and riots by the Palestinians from that time were in opposition to this colonial project. That opposition continues to today.

The Zionists saw the 1939 White Paper as betraying the Mandate promise of a Jewish state that never was. They continuously worked outside the confines of the Mandate and never accepted the idea of being Palestinians and sharing the country.

Britain folded its tent and left Palestine failing to create an independent Palestinian state as called for in the LoN Covenant.

Why should we accept the premise of Jewish citizens of Palestine in the context of a "civil war" when they themselves rejected that status?

The White Paper was BEFORE the 1947 partition plan, which the 'Palestinians' accepted 41 years after it was brought up and used it as a basis to declare independence.

BTW, you act as if the 'Palestinians' wanted to share a country with all the Jews , under one government.

The Second Subcommittee, which included all the Arab and Muslim States members, issued a long report arguing that partition was illegal according to the terms of the Mandate and proposing a unitary democratic state that would protect rights of all citizens equally.

The fifth national council of the Palestine Liberation Organisation in February 1969 passed a resolution confirming that the PLO's objective was "to establish a free and democratic society in Palestine for all Palestinians whether they are Muslims, Christians or Jews".

Palestinian activist Edward Said wrote: "... after 50 years of Israeli history, classic Zionism has provided no solution to the Palestinian presence. I therefore see no other way than to begin now to speak about sharing the land that has thrust us together, sharing it in a truly democratic way with equal rights for all citizens."

One-state solution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And as the Palestinian charters show this meant only Jews born before 1850 would be legible to be included as Palestinian citizens, all others would be murdered. So is it any wonder the LoN dismissed this plan and refused to even discuss it. The evidence of recent activity shows that the Jews would have been ethnically cleansed and run of their land by the arab muslims carrying out their mantra of "First Saturday and then Sunday"

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I don't think there has ever been a Plan of any sort in which both sides have agreed upon that came after the Agreement between Prince Faisal and Chaim Weizmann --- relative to "national aspirations."

The Royal Commission of 1936-1937

89. The Commission believed that partition on the lines they proposed, while demanding from both Arabs and Jews some sacrifice of their aspirations, bla, bla, bla.​

Why did you waste so much verbosity on the 1937 partition plan?

It was rejected by both sides and abandoned.

(COMMENT)

The discussion touched on the the various partition models considered relative to the establishment of individual Arab and Jewish states. The Royal Commission (appointed by His Majesty) raised the issue in an atmosphere of mutual compromise and cooperation towards the end-product of peace; excluding that territory unto which The King of Great Britain, gave special recognition of passing into the hands of His Highness The Emir as the sovereign of Trans-Jordan. SOURCE: Page 144 UN Treaty Series 1947

Having raised the issue and asking for the cooperation of the Arab Palestinians, as the Mandatory had asked several times before, and as history recorded several times since, there has been no plan put forth in the last 97 years (since the Ottoman Surrender, the Treaty of Mudros, and the establishment of The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration or OETA in 1918) including the Civil War, the War of Independence, the Six-Day War, and the Yom Kipper War, that the Arab Palestinians have attempted to establish peace.

There is no reasonable expectation that the world of diplomacy and democracy will recover any cooperation from the Arab Palestinian that will be a basis of a good faith effort for the establish of a meaningful peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

Peace with justice has never been on the table.

Because the arab muslims want it all and will not accept peace with justice

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

These are all interlocking processes. One supporting the other.

(COMMENT)

The Order: "The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council which was made in August, 1925, provides for "the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence."

If there was "never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians" (your words not mine) then the Citizenship Order would not have further supported the Article 4 Mandate requirement that the Mandatory "shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage;" OR the Article 7 Mandate requirement for the Mandatory "to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine."

You are grasping at straws here --- trying to find some supporting documentation by the Allied Powers that would nullify the Jewish Immigrant authorization for Palestinian (territory to which the Mandate applied) Citizenship.

Both the Arab and the Jewish derive their citizenship from the same authority and power. Thus when they began to fight, they were citizen against citizen (a war between citizens of the same government - that established by the Council and Allied Powers).

Most Respectfully,
R

If there was "never any intent for the settlers to be Palestinians" (your words not mine) then the Citizenship Order would not have further supported the Article 4 Mandate requirement that the Mandatory "shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage;" OR the Article 7 Mandate requirement for the Mandatory "to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine."​

Good points. What the Mandate called for and what the Zionists strived for were two different things. As you say: the Mandatory shall facilitate Jewish immigration, and facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews. The goal was a single, democratic state shared by all of its citizens. This goal was clarified by the 1939 White Paper.

The Zionists, however, pushed for a Jewish state from day one. The Palestinians opposed the Zionist project by the turn of the century. All of the revolts and riots by the Palestinians from that time were in opposition to this colonial project. That opposition continues to today.

The Zionists saw the 1939 White Paper as betraying the Mandate promise of a Jewish state that never was. They continuously worked outside the confines of the Mandate and never accepted the idea of being Palestinians and sharing the country.

Britain folded its tent and left Palestine failing to create an independent Palestinian state as called for in the LoN Covenant.

Why should we accept the premise of Jewish citizens of Palestine in the context of a "civil war" when they themselves rejected that status?

The White Paper was BEFORE the 1947 partition plan, which the 'Palestinians' accepted 41 years after it was brought up and used it as a basis to declare independence.

BTW, you act as if the 'Palestinians' wanted to share a country with all the Jews , under one government.

The Second Subcommittee, which included all the Arab and Muslim States members, issued a long report arguing that partition was illegal according to the terms of the Mandate and proposing a unitary democratic state that would protect rights of all citizens equally.

The fifth national council of the Palestine Liberation Organisation in February 1969 passed a resolution confirming that the PLO's objective was "to establish a free and democratic society in Palestine for all Palestinians whether they are Muslims, Christians or Jews".

Palestinian activist Edward Said wrote: "... after 50 years of Israeli history, classic Zionism has provided no solution to the Palestinian presence. I therefore see no other way than to begin now to speak about sharing the land that has thrust us together, sharing it in a truly democratic way with equal rights for all citizens."

One-state solution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And as the Palestinian charters show this meant only Jews born before 1850 would be legible to be included as Palestinian citizens, all others would be murdered. So is it any wonder the LoN dismissed this plan and refused to even discuss it. The evidence of recent activity shows that the Jews would have been ethnically cleansed and run of their land by the arab muslims carrying out their mantra of "First Saturday and then Sunday"

Palestinians many charters that say only Jews born before the birth of Zionism and living in Palestine will be classed as Palestinians. All others will be removed from the land.

 

[Challenger]

The proposal for a unitary democratic state would not provide the necessary protection against the government persecution and discrimination directed towards the Jewish Culture. The Arabs would be able to maintain a majority that would always be able to suppress the minority Jewish Culture; it is a type of government that would not be able to protect and preserve and environment that could sustain and develop a Jewish National Home. Such a state --- governed through one single power (unity) in which the central government is ultimately very strong. This is not unlike several of the Arab Governments that have failed in the last half century, or fallen prey to severe internal strife and conflict. It is a one-state solution, but probably not the best solution given the differences between the two cultures that cannot reconcile their differences.

Seems to be working reasonably well with the white minority in South Africa also minority rights can be guarenteed in a Constitution, seems to work quite well in multicultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious, USA.

 

[Challenger]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I don't think there has ever been a Plan of any sort in which both sides have agreed upon that came after the Agreement between Prince Faisal and Chaim Weizmann --- relative to "national aspirations."

The Royal Commission of 1936-1937

89. The Commission believed that partition on the lines they proposed, while demanding from both Arabs and Jews some sacrifice of their aspirations, bla, bla, bla.​

Why did you waste so much verbosity on the 1937 partition plan?

It was rejected by both sides and abandoned.

(COMMENT)

The discussion touched on the the various partition models considered relative to the establishment of individual Arab and Jewish states. The Royal Commission (appointed by His Majesty) raised the issue in an atmosphere of mutual compromise and cooperation towards the end-product of peace; excluding that territory unto which The King of Great Britain, gave special recognition of passing into the hands of His Highness The Emir as the sovereign of Trans-Jordan. SOURCE: Page 144 UN Treaty Series 1947

Having raised the issue and asking for the cooperation of the Arab Palestinians, as the Mandatory had asked several times before, and as history recorded several times since, there has been no plan put forth in the last 97 years (since the Ottoman Surrender, the Treaty of Mudros, and the establishment of The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration or OETA in 1918) including the Civil War, the War of Independence, the Six-Day War, and the Yom Kipper War, that the Arab Palestinians have attempted to establish peace.

There is no reasonable expectation that the world of diplomacy and democracy will recover any cooperation from the Arab Palestinian that will be a basis of a good faith effort for the establish of a meaningful peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

Peace with justice has never been on the table.

Because the arab muslims want it all and will not accept peace with justice

No, because the Zionist Israelis want it all and will not accept peace with justice, keep up phoney.

 

[Phoenall]

The proposal for a unitary democratic state would not provide the necessary protection against the government persecution and discrimination directed towards the Jewish Culture. The Arabs would be able to maintain a majority that would always be able to suppress the minority Jewish Culture; it is a type of government that would not be able to protect and preserve and environment that could sustain and develop a Jewish National Home. Such a state --- governed through one single power (unity) in which the central government is ultimately very strong. This is not unlike several of the Arab Governments that have failed in the last half century, or fallen prey to severe internal strife and conflict. It is a one-state solution, but probably not the best solution given the differences between the two cultures that cannot reconcile their differences.

Seems to be working reasonably well with the white minority in South Africa also minority rights can be guarenteed in a Constitution, seems to work quite well in multicultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious, USA.

Is that why South Africa is the racist murder capital of the world, and the decent blacks want a return of White Rule because of the violence. You really need to look at what you post and where you get your information from as you do post some tripe at times, and most of it is ANTI SEMITIC RACISM

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, I don't think there has ever been a Plan of any sort in which both sides have agreed upon that came after the Agreement between Prince Faisal and Chaim Weizmann --- relative to "national aspirations."

The Royal Commission of 1936-1937

89. The Commission believed that partition on the lines they proposed, while demanding from both Arabs and Jews some sacrifice of their aspirations, bla, bla, bla.​

Why did you waste so much verbosity on the 1937 partition plan?

It was rejected by both sides and abandoned.

(COMMENT)

The discussion touched on the the various partition models considered relative to the establishment of individual Arab and Jewish states. The Royal Commission (appointed by His Majesty) raised the issue in an atmosphere of mutual compromise and cooperation towards the end-product of peace; excluding that territory unto which The King of Great Britain, gave special recognition of passing into the hands of His Highness The Emir as the sovereign of Trans-Jordan. SOURCE: Page 144 UN Treaty Series 1947

Having raised the issue and asking for the cooperation of the Arab Palestinians, as the Mandatory had asked several times before, and as history recorded several times since, there has been no plan put forth in the last 97 years (since the Ottoman Surrender, the Treaty of Mudros, and the establishment of The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration or OETA in 1918) including the Civil War, the War of Independence, the Six-Day War, and the Yom Kipper War, that the Arab Palestinians have attempted to establish peace.

There is no reasonable expectation that the world of diplomacy and democracy will recover any cooperation from the Arab Palestinian that will be a basis of a good faith effort for the establish of a meaningful peace.

Most Respectfully,
R

Peace with justice has never been on the table.

Because the arab muslims want it all and will not accept peace with justice

No, because the Zionist Israelis want it all and will not accept peace with justice, keep up phoney.

You are the one that need to keep up as the hamas and fatah charters both say that their intent is to drive the Jews out of Israel so that they can have the land from the river to the sea. Then no Jews will be allowed to live in their Islamic nation ever again. Nothing like that in any of the Israeli charters is there. And as the history books show it has always been the arab muslims that will not accept any peace talks that don't include the whole of Israel becoming arab muslim.