Indigenous Palestinians Were JEWS

[theliq]

theliq, et al,

The reliance on the concept of "indigenous" (rights or population) is a slippery slope.

MJB12741,

The definition of "Indigenous People(s)" is tricky to say the least. The definition is often self serving.

Objectively, there are two very key issues that must be addressed before a determination can be made on the assignment of the "Indigenous People" label.

• How far back in time are you accepting evidence of a culture with historical ties to the territory?
• How long does it take for a culture to be in place before it can be considered "Indigenous?"
​

Who’s Indigenous?

(COMMENT)

There is NO Universally accepted definition for "Indigenous People." Why? (Rhetorical) Simply because it raises difficult questions that cannot be settled accurately by law.

The Ohio Scenario

If the Canadians mount a successful amphibious assault from Ontario and captures the State of Ohio, who are considered the "indigenous population?"
OR, is it still the Iroquois, Miami, and Shawnee Tribes that inhabited the Ohio Valley (territory west of the Appalachian Mountains) in the time of the French and Indian Wars?
OR, was it the first American Settlers that moving west and encroaching on the indian inhabitants?
​

It is tied up in the nebulas phrase "historical ties to a particular territory;" or as the Allied Powers said at San Remo: "the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine." In 1920, when the Allied Powers were making decisions on the apportionment of former Ottoman Empire territory, they saw the history of the territory of Palestine as very transient and evolving. The territory of Palestine was a sliver of land that was controlled by numerous different Empires, Countries, and Cultural Authorities [Paleo-Canaanites, Amorites, Ancient Egyptians, Israelites, Moabites, Ammonites, Tjeker, Philistines, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, (Umayads, Abbasids, Seljuqs, Fatimids), French Crusaders, (Ayyubids, Mameluks, Ottoman Turks), and soon the British]. (List from Wikipedia --- History of Palestine) This is what the Allied Powers saw in the way of History. This is part of the thought process that ultimately lead them to the decisions they made.

Yes, we also consider cultural and historical distinction, ethnic groups associated, and a share sense of identity. But in the end, you have to ask yourself, how long do you look back in time to determine "indigenous?"

Most Respectfully,
R

well I can tell you for nothing Rocco,Jews were definately sic NOT THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF THIS LAND.......NOT BY A LONG HAUL..steve and you know it

(COMMENT)

The Anglo-Saxons of England were the members of Germanic-speaking groups who migrated (≈ AD 400 to AD 600) to the southern half of the island from continental Europe, and their cultural. Then, in about ≈ 1066, Duke William of Normandy invaded England (from France), ending ≈ 500 years of Saxon rule (Battle of Hastings.). Today, who is the indigenous population? Its a rhetorical question because it doesn't matter.

What this does indicate is that at some point, just as the Anglo-Saxons became the "indigenous population" over the post Roman era inhabitants, --- so it was that the Normans assimilated the survivors and they mix became indigenous. How long does it take to become the "indigenous population?"

Most Respectfully,
R

theliq, et al,

The reliance on the concept of "indigenous" (rights or population) is a slippery slope.

MJB12741,

The definition of "Indigenous People(s)" is tricky to say the least. The definition is often self serving.

Objectively, there are two very key issues that must be addressed before a determination can be made on the assignment of the "Indigenous People" label.

• How far back in time are you accepting evidence of a culture with historical ties to the territory?
• How long does it take for a culture to be in place before it can be considered "Indigenous?"
​

Who’s Indigenous?

(COMMENT)

There is NO Universally accepted definition for "Indigenous People." Why? (Rhetorical) Simply because it raises difficult questions that cannot be settled accurately by law.

The Ohio Scenario

If the Canadians mount a successful amphibious assault from Ontario and captures the State of Ohio, who are considered the "indigenous population?"
OR, is it still the Iroquois, Miami, and Shawnee Tribes that inhabited the Ohio Valley (territory west of the Appalachian Mountains) in the time of the French and Indian Wars?
OR, was it the first American Settlers that moving west and encroaching on the indian inhabitants?
​

It is tied up in the nebulas phrase "historical ties to a particular territory;" or as the Allied Powers said at San Remo: "the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine." In 1920, when the Allied Powers were making decisions on the apportionment of former Ottoman Empire territory, they saw the history of the territory of Palestine as very transient and evolving. The territory of Palestine was a sliver of land that was controlled by numerous different Empires, Countries, and Cultural Authorities [Paleo-Canaanites, Amorites, Ancient Egyptians, Israelites, Moabites, Ammonites, Tjeker, Philistines, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, (Umayads, Abbasids, Seljuqs, Fatimids), French Crusaders, (Ayyubids, Mameluks, Ottoman Turks), and soon the British]. (List from Wikipedia --- History of Palestine) This is what the Allied Powers saw in the way of History. This is part of the thought process that ultimately lead them to the decisions they made.

Yes, we also consider cultural and historical distinction, ethnic groups associated, and a share sense of identity. But in the end, you have to ask yourself, how long do you look back in time to determine "indigenous?"

Most Respectfully,
R

well I can tell you for nothing Rocco,Jews were definately sic NOT THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF THIS LAND.......NOT BY A LONG HAUL..steve and you know it

(COMMENT)

The Anglo-Saxons of England were the members of Germanic-speaking groups who migrated (≈ AD 400 to AD 600) to the southern half of the island from continental Europe, and their cultural. Then, in about ≈ 1066, Duke William of Normandy invaded England (from France), ending ≈ 500 years of Saxon rule (Battle of Hastings.). Today, who is the indigenous population? Its a rhetorical question because it doesn't matter.

What this does indicate is that at some point, just as the Anglo-Saxons became the "indigenous population" over the post Roman era inhabitants, --- so it was that the Normans assimilated the survivors and they mix became indigenous. How long does it take to become the "indigenous population?"

Most Respectfully,
R

Depends which theory you believe. British culture remained during the Roman occupation, as did the majority of the population. When the Romans left, the indigenous population continued; true there was some intermarriage, but the bulk of the population just stopped speaking Latin (if they ever did to begin with) and abandonded those funny square houses with their underfloor heating systems. Roman cities gradually disappeared due to lack of use. When the Saxons came, did they come as colonists or conquerors? Did Saxon culture spread or did Saxon genes? The Saxons certainly became the new aristocracy and in 500 years or so Anglo-Saxon became the lingua franca and dominant culture, except in the Danelaw where Norse was spoken. Similarly, when the Normans came, was there a mass influx of Norman people into the country, or just a new governing elite? Recent genetic studies seem to indicate that the indigenous population of Britain has remained fairly constant, with admixtures of foreign genetic material, which tends to support the theory of cultural domination and eventual assimilation as opposed mass migration and native expulsion.

If an indigenous population adopts the language and culture of a conqueror it remains indigenous, regardless of time. "Judeans" have adopted Iranian, Greco-Roman and Arabic culture and languages over the millenia, to name but a few. The native population remains indigenous to the area. For Jewish Europeans, north Africans, and Etheopians to claim ownership by virtue of some semitic material admixture in their genome and the writings of a book of fables, is quite frankly, ridiculous.

Excellent Post Challenger...A1

 

[docmauser1]

"MANDATES A.
MEMORANDUM BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS. [Lord Curzon].
A FINAL decision about Mandates A is required. The Assembly of the League of Nations is concerned about their submission to the Council, and will probably not allow the gathering at Geneva to come to an end without a decision being taken on the point.
It is understood that the Council of the League is likely to hold a meeting while at Geneva to consider these Mandates, and it has been informed that they will be submitted without further delay. The Mandates concerned are those for Syria, Mesopotamia and Palestine.

Yeah, right!! hehe
“(2) The Mandate [for Palestine] is of a different type from the Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon and the draft Mandate for Iraq. These latter, which were called for convenience “A” Mandates, accorded with the fourth paragraph of Article 22. Thus the Syrian Mandate provided that the government should be based on an organic law which should take into account the rights, interests and wishes of all the inhabitants, and that measures should be enacted ‘to facilitate the progressive development of Syria and the Lebanon as independent States.’ The corresponding sentences of the draft Mandate for Iraq were the same. In compliance with them National Legislatures were established in due course on an elective basis. Article 1 of the Palestine Mandate, on the other hand, vests ‘full powers of legislation and of administration,’ within the limits of the Mandate, in the Mandatory.”
Palestine royal report, july, 1937.
The mandate palestine was not a Class A mandate. Iraq was.
Enjoy

 

[docmauser1]

theliq, et al,

The reliance on the concept of "indigenous" (rights or population) is a slippery slope.

MJB12741,

The definition of "Indigenous People(s)" is tricky to say the least. The definition is often self serving.

Objectively, there are two very key issues that must be addressed before a determination can be made on the assignment of the "Indigenous People" label.

• How far back in time are you accepting evidence of a culture with historical ties to the territory?
• How long does it take for a culture to be in place before it can be considered "Indigenous?"
​

Who’s Indigenous?

(COMMENT)

There is NO Universally accepted definition for "Indigenous People." Why? (Rhetorical) Simply because it raises difficult questions that cannot be settled accurately by law.

The Ohio Scenario

If the Canadians mount a successful amphibious assault from Ontario and captures the State of Ohio, who are considered the "indigenous population?"
OR, is it still the Iroquois, Miami, and Shawnee Tribes that inhabited the Ohio Valley (territory west of the Appalachian Mountains) in the time of the French and Indian Wars?
OR, was it the first American Settlers that moving west and encroaching on the indian inhabitants?
​

It is tied up in the nebulas phrase "historical ties to a particular territory;" or as the Allied Powers said at San Remo: "the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine." In 1920, when the Allied Powers were making decisions on the apportionment of former Ottoman Empire territory, they saw the history of the territory of Palestine as very transient and evolving. The territory of Palestine was a sliver of land that was controlled by numerous different Empires, Countries, and Cultural Authorities [Paleo-Canaanites, Amorites, Ancient Egyptians, Israelites, Moabites, Ammonites, Tjeker, Philistines, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, (Umayads, Abbasids, Seljuqs, Fatimids), French Crusaders, (Ayyubids, Mameluks, Ottoman Turks), and soon the British]. (List from Wikipedia --- History of Palestine) This is what the Allied Powers saw in the way of History. This is part of the thought process that ultimately lead them to the decisions they made.

Yes, we also consider cultural and historical distinction, ethnic groups associated, and a share sense of identity. But in the end, you have to ask yourself, how long do you look back in time to determine "indigenous?"

Most Respectfully,
R

well I can tell you for nothing Rocco,Jews were definately sic NOT THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF THIS LAND.......NOT BY A LONG HAUL..steve and you know it

(COMMENT)

The Anglo-Saxons of England were the members of Germanic-speaking groups who migrated (≈ AD 400 to AD 600) to the southern half of the island from continental Europe, and their cultural. Then, in about ≈ 1066, Duke William of Normandy invaded England (from France), ending ≈ 500 years of Saxon rule (Battle of Hastings.). Today, who is the indigenous population? Its a rhetorical question because it doesn't matter.

What this does indicate is that at some point, just as the Anglo-Saxons became the "indigenous population" over the post Roman era inhabitants, --- so it was that the Normans assimilated the survivors and they mix became indigenous. How long does it take to become the "indigenous population?"

Most Respectfully,
R

theliq, et al,

The reliance on the concept of "indigenous" (rights or population) is a slippery slope.

MJB12741,

The definition of "Indigenous People(s)" is tricky to say the least. The definition is often self serving.

Objectively, there are two very key issues that must be addressed before a determination can be made on the assignment of the "Indigenous People" label.

• How far back in time are you accepting evidence of a culture with historical ties to the territory?
• How long does it take for a culture to be in place before it can be considered "Indigenous?"
​

Who’s Indigenous?

(COMMENT)

There is NO Universally accepted definition for "Indigenous People." Why? (Rhetorical) Simply because it raises difficult questions that cannot be settled accurately by law.

The Ohio Scenario

If the Canadians mount a successful amphibious assault from Ontario and captures the State of Ohio, who are considered the "indigenous population?"
OR, is it still the Iroquois, Miami, and Shawnee Tribes that inhabited the Ohio Valley (territory west of the Appalachian Mountains) in the time of the French and Indian Wars?
OR, was it the first American Settlers that moving west and encroaching on the indian inhabitants?
​

It is tied up in the nebulas phrase "historical ties to a particular territory;" or as the Allied Powers said at San Remo: "the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine." In 1920, when the Allied Powers were making decisions on the apportionment of former Ottoman Empire territory, they saw the history of the territory of Palestine as very transient and evolving. The territory of Palestine was a sliver of land that was controlled by numerous different Empires, Countries, and Cultural Authorities [Paleo-Canaanites, Amorites, Ancient Egyptians, Israelites, Moabites, Ammonites, Tjeker, Philistines, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, (Umayads, Abbasids, Seljuqs, Fatimids), French Crusaders, (Ayyubids, Mameluks, Ottoman Turks), and soon the British]. (List from Wikipedia --- History of Palestine) This is what the Allied Powers saw in the way of History. This is part of the thought process that ultimately lead them to the decisions they made.

Yes, we also consider cultural and historical distinction, ethnic groups associated, and a share sense of identity. But in the end, you have to ask yourself, how long do you look back in time to determine "indigenous?"

Most Respectfully,
R

well I can tell you for nothing Rocco,Jews were definately sic NOT THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF THIS LAND.......NOT BY A LONG HAUL..steve and you know it

(COMMENT)

The Anglo-Saxons of England were the members of Germanic-speaking groups who migrated (≈ AD 400 to AD 600) to the southern half of the island from continental Europe, and their cultural. Then, in about ≈ 1066, Duke William of Normandy invaded England (from France), ending ≈ 500 years of Saxon rule (Battle of Hastings.). Today, who is the indigenous population? Its a rhetorical question because it doesn't matter.

What this does indicate is that at some point, just as the Anglo-Saxons became the "indigenous population" over the post Roman era inhabitants, --- so it was that the Normans assimilated the survivors and they mix became indigenous. How long does it take to become the "indigenous population?"

Most Respectfully,
R

Depends which theory you believe. British culture remained during the Roman occupation, as did the majority of the population. When the Romans left, the indigenous population continued; true there was some intermarriage, but the bulk of the population just stopped speaking Latin (if they ever did to begin with) and abandonded those funny square houses with their underfloor heating systems. Roman cities gradually disappeared due to lack of use. When the Saxons came, did they come as colonists or conquerors? Did Saxon culture spread or did Saxon genes? The Saxons certainly became the new aristocracy and in 500 years or so Anglo-Saxon became the lingua franca and dominant culture, except in the Danelaw where Norse was spoken. Similarly, when the Normans came, was there a mass influx of Norman people into the country, or just a new governing elite? Recent genetic studies seem to indicate that the indigenous population of Britain has remained fairly constant, with admixtures of foreign genetic material, which tends to support the theory of cultural domination and eventual assimilation as opposed mass migration and native expulsion.

If an indigenous population adopts the language and culture of a conqueror it remains indigenous, regardless of time. "Judeans" have adopted Iranian, Greco-Roman and Arabic culture and languages over the millenia, to name but a few. The native population remains indigenous to the area. For Jewish Europeans, north Africans, and Etheopians to claim ownership by virtue of some semitic material admixture in their genome and the writings of a book of fables, is quite frankly, ridiculous.

Excellent Post Challenger...A1

Bullish, as usual, of course.

 

[docmauser1]

The parties to the present Agreement, responding to the Security Council resolution of16 November 1948 calling upon them, as a further provisional measure underArticle 40 of the Charter of the United Nations and in order to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine,

So, who was that shakh, emir, pasha, sultan, prime-minister, president of that "palestine"? Otherwise, the contention is relegated to agitprop-garbaggio can, of course.

 

[Rehmani]

I really don't think that this argument about who is an "indigenous population" to the territory is going anywhere.​

All of the people, Muslims, Christians, and Jews, who normally lived in Palestine when it was created after WWI became citizens of Palestine. That is the standard procedure. All of those new countries did the same thing.

There is nothing to dispute.

Actually, you're befuddled, as usual.

Palestine was the description of an undefined, noncontiguous land area. That's why it's comical to read of islamists referring to "Pal'istanians". That label for an invented people with an invented national identify was the creation of the now, thankfully dead, Arafat.

OR in my word Israel is gift to jews from coalition in wwii, because jew help them against Germany and this undefined territory was part of Ottoman Empire which was letter on divided in small countries so they can placed Israel in there followed by armed and army support.

30 years out as they were granted the land in 1923 by the then sovereign owners

And soon world will repeat history and holly land would be given to people of palestine and I hope you will accept the master decision then.

Who will give the holy land to the arab muslims then, as this would be a war crime, a crime against humanity and a breach of every Geneva convention.

What do you think jew got Israel by themselves. It was gift from WWII coalition to Jew because jew help coalition out in wwii against Germany.

 

[Rehmani]

I really don't think that this argument about who is an "indigenous population" to the territory is going anywhere.​

All of the people, Muslims, Christians, and Jews, who normally lived in Palestine when it was created after WWI became citizens of Palestine. That is the standard procedure. All of those new countries did the same thing.

There is nothing to dispute.

Apart from what do we do with all those who migrated illegally to Palestine after 1923, which would be 80% of the current aqrab muslim population.

You are more jew than a jew, may be if I will try to convince to some jew would be better.

WRONG you just don't make any sense. Try posting on some islamonazi board in future

Because you are not jew as you told me before and you are trying to pose some one else agenda.

According to international law the sovereign owners of Palestine are the Jews, so try disputing this with your islamonazi propaganda

New International law will replace the old one and I hope you will accept then instead falls propaganda.

 

[Phoenall]

What about the other mandates then, like Jordan, Syria, Iran, Iraq et al

By the way Britain was not the mandate they were the ones who ran the Mandate for the LoN who took up the reins of sovereignty of the old Ottoman empire.

Why don't you try reading my post before responding?

I did and it clearly says that the LoN became sovereign land owners before the date of this treaty that was never made international law.

And once again you resort to biased and partisan sources for your information even though you know they are not truthful. So you lose again because you use flawed information

BS!

Quote the passage with link.

Your link above


until the true wishes of the inhabitants of those territories could be ascertained.

Article 5 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Power (the UK) to ensure that "no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way, placed under the control of the government of any foreign power". Under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the people of Palestine were to emerge as a fully independent nation at the end of the Mandate




So until the arab muslims either move out or show self determination in full the mandate is still in force

Under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the people of Palestine were to emerge as a fully independent nation at the end of the Mandate​

That is absolutely correct. I have contemplated that scenario myself.

The Mandatory power (Britain) was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. That done, Palestine would become an independent state and the Mandate would come to an end.

However, Britain failed to accomplish that goal. They passed the administration to the UNPC and left. So if that scenario is correct (that I believe it to be) then Palestine fell under the trusteeship of the UN. The UN failed to step in to protect the people and territory in its trust leaving us with the mess we are in now.

Thank you for bringing up this point, though. I never did because people are confused enough by the issues.

Which they would have if the arab muslims had agreed to the partition of 1923 when Palestine was made into two separate entities that were both to achieve fully independent nation status. One being arab muslim and known as trans Jordan, the other being jewish and known as the Jewish NATIONal home. So the only thing sopping this from happening was the arrogance and greed of the arabs who wanted everything. Britain failed at nothing as it was never in their power to usirp the Mandate and grant all of Jewish Palestine to the arabs. The UN should have stepped in and enforced the mandate as written which would have meant the arab muslims moving to Jordan or staying as full citizens of Israel

 

[Phoenall]

Actually, you're befuddled, as usual.

Palestine was the description of an undefined, noncontiguous land area. That's why it's comical to read of islamists referring to "Pal'istanians". That label for an invented people with an invented national identify was the creation of the now, thankfully dead, Arafat.

OR in my word Israel is gift to jews from coalition in wwii, because jew help them against Germany and this undefined territory was part of Ottoman Empire which was letter on divided in small countries so they can placed Israel in there followed by armed and army support.

30 years out as they were granted the land in 1923 by the then sovereign owners

And soon world will repeat history and holly land would be given to people of palestine and I hope you will accept the master decision then.

Who will give the holy land to the arab muslims then, as this would be a war crime, a crime against humanity and a breach of every Geneva convention.

What do you think jew got Israel by themselves. It was gift from WWII coalition to Jew because jew help coalition out in wwii against Germany.

30 years out as the LoN granted the land to the Jews under the mandate in 1923, the same mandate that granted Joprdan to the arab mislims.

 

[Phoenall]

Apart from what do we do with all those who migrated illegally to Palestine after 1923, which would be 80% of the current aqrab muslim population.

You are more jew than a jew, may be if I will try to convince to some jew would be better.

WRONG you just don't make any sense. Try posting on some islamonazi board in future

Because you are not jew as you told me before and you are trying to pose some one else agenda.

According to international law the sovereign owners of Palestine are the Jews, so try disputing this with your islamonazi propaganda

New International law will replace the old one and I hope you will accept then instead falls propaganda.

No new International law can change sovereiengty without the sovereign nation agreeing to it.

 

[Challenger]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure this is true.

It wasn't aggression. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians from foreign colonial attack. They fought Israeli forces in Palestine. And contrary to Israels constant line of bullshit, they did not lose the war. They all exited the war completely intact.

How would that change Palestine's legal status?

(COMMENT)

At the conclusion of the Armistice agreements, for all intent and purposed --- there was no Palestine remaining.

• The Jordanians occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem; with the consent of the Palestinians - Jordan annexed the West Bank. The Jordanians got what they wanted.
• The Egyptians occupied the Gaza Strip and established a Military Governorship. The Egyptians got what they wanted.
• The Syria and Lebanon made no headway at all. Syria lost control if some DMZ areas along the Green Line; but sovereignty was not yet decided or established.
• The Israeli forces took control of isolated areas originally allotted by the UN as part of the Arab State.

For all intent and purposes, at the conclusion of the Armistice Agreements, of the territories originally allocated for the Arab State, there was none left. It had been divided three way between Israel, Egypt and Jordan.

You are correct. The only territory really lost to Israel was the territory formerly allocated the be part of the Arab State. The Arabs risked the territory of the Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

In 1939 Poland was occupied by Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, nothing was left of pre-1939 Poland but that did not mean that the Polish people reliquished their sovereignty over the Polish territory that existed before September 1939. Poles remained Poles and Palestinians still remained Palestinians.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Where does that come from???

[

Under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the people of Palestine were to emerge as a fully independent nation at the end of the Mandate​

That is absolutely correct. I have contemplated that scenario myself.

The Mandatory power (Britain) was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. That done, Palestine would become an independent state and the Mandate would come to an end.

However, Britain failed to accomplish that goal. They passed the administration to the UNPC and left. So if that scenario is correct (that I believe it to be) then Palestine fell under the trusteeship of the UN. The UN failed to step in to protect the people and territory in its trust leaving us with the mess we are in now.

Thank you for bringing up this point, though. I never did because people are confused enough by the issues.

(COMMENT)

The UN Palestine Commission was designated the successor in GA RES 181(II) (Part I - Section B Steps Preparatory to Independence - Paragraph 1). It was not passed by the UK as the Mandatory. The UK just was part of the joint public announcement of record.

Nowhere in the entire Covenant, does it mention Palestine in any regard; let alone promise independence. The Covenant speaks about "certain communities" which could be given provisional recognition. These "certain communities" had been recognised by the Covenant itself, subject to the conditions that they are able to stand alone. The Palestinians, west of the Jordan River, were not then and are not now, able to stand alone without donor nation support, and external surveillance over security issues. However, within the territories to which the Mandate of Palestine applied, the provisional recognition to TransJordan was given special recognition under Article 22(4); as a nation that could be able to stand alone. On May 15, 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah. On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan. Don't confuse the successful transition of TransJordan from an Emirate to a Kingdom --- with the Palestine constituents west of the Jordan River.

TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN
HIS MAJESTY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
AND
HIS HIGHNESS THE AMIR OF TRANSJORDAN.
ARTICLE 1​

His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof. There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between His Majesty The King and His Highness The Amir of Trans-Jordan.​

At no point did the Arab Palestinians on the west of the Jordan River, ever demonstrate the stability, security, and comprehensive capacity to perform the executive functions normally associate with a self-governing nation that could stand alone.

Most Respectfully,
R

At no point did the Arab Palestinians on the west of the Jordan River, ever demonstrate the stability, security, and comprehensive capacity to perform the executive functions normally associate with a self-governing nation that could stand alone.​

Britain prevented that from happening. That is why they kept a military presence for a civilian function.

How did Britain do this, did they gag every single arab in the west bank so they could not proclaim they were ready to take up the reins of power ? You really need to take a long hard look at the requirements and how they are put into place, every step was the people showing their ability to form a government, run a country, raise taxes, show ability to enforce the taws and be fully independent. The arab muslims of Jewish Palestine have consistently shown that they are incapable of achieving any of these aims

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Where does it even mention Palestinian. OH yeah. That is just more Palestinian say so.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Where does that come from???

[

Under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the people of Palestine were to emerge as a fully independent nation at the end of the Mandate​

That is absolutely correct. I have contemplated that scenario myself.

The Mandatory power (Britain) was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. That done, Palestine would become an independent state and the Mandate would come to an end.

However, Britain failed to accomplish that goal. They passed the administration to the UNPC and left. So if that scenario is correct (that I believe it to be) then Palestine fell under the trusteeship of the UN. The UN failed to step in to protect the people and territory in its trust leaving us with the mess we are in now.

Thank you for bringing up this point, though. I never did because people are confused enough by the issues.

(COMMENT)

The UN Palestine Commission was designated the successor in GA RES 181(II) (Part I - Section B Steps Preparatory to Independence - Paragraph 1). It was not passed by the UK as the Mandatory. The UK just was part of the joint public announcement of record.

Nowhere in the entire Covenant, does it mention Palestine in any regard; let alone promise independence. The Covenant speaks about "certain communities" which could be given provisional recognition. These "certain communities" had been recognised by the Covenant itself, subject to the conditions that they are able to stand alone. The Palestinians, west of the Jordan River, were not then and are not now, able to stand alone without donor nation support, and external surveillance over security issues. However, within the territories to which the Mandate of Palestine applied, the provisional recognition to TransJordan was given special recognition under Article 22(4); as a nation that could be able to stand alone. On May 15, 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah. On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan. Don't confuse the successful transition of TransJordan from an Emirate to a Kingdom --- with the Palestine constituents west of the Jordan River.

TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN
HIS MAJESTY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
AND
HIS HIGHNESS THE AMIR OF TRANSJORDAN.
ARTICLE 1​

His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof. There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between His Majesty The King and His Highness The Amir of Trans-Jordan.​

At no point did the Arab Palestinians on the west of the Jordan River, ever demonstrate the stability, security, and comprehensive capacity to perform the executive functions normally associate with a self-governing nation that could stand alone.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Covenant speaks about "certain communities" which could be given provisional recognition.​

Where does it say that Palestine was exempt?

Link?

Oh yeah, it was just more of Israel's say so.

(COMMENT)
Where does it say Palestine, both east and west of the Jordan, is absolutely included? Why do you suggest that it MUST BE the case?

Why would you suspect that "certain communities" would mean "all communities." Where is it defined that "certain communities" includes the Palestinians west of the Jordan River?

You want it to be true. That does not mean it is true.

Most Respectfully,
R

Where is it defined that "certain communities" includes the Palestinians west of the Jordan River?

Where does it say "except Palestine" anywhere?

By its omission in any of the treaties of course. that speaks as loud as the introduction of the Jewish NATIONal home being included in the trteaties

 

[Kondor3]

...

...

A fine-looking specimen of Neanderthal...

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Where does that come from???

[

Under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the people of Palestine were to emerge as a fully independent nation at the end of the Mandate​

That is absolutely correct. I have contemplated that scenario myself.

The Mandatory power (Britain) was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. That done, Palestine would become an independent state and the Mandate would come to an end.

However, Britain failed to accomplish that goal. They passed the administration to the UNPC and left. So if that scenario is correct (that I believe it to be) then Palestine fell under the trusteeship of the UN. The UN failed to step in to protect the people and territory in its trust leaving us with the mess we are in now.

Thank you for bringing up this point, though. I never did because people are confused enough by the issues.

(COMMENT)

The UN Palestine Commission was designated the successor in GA RES 181(II) (Part I - Section B Steps Preparatory to Independence - Paragraph 1). It was not passed by the UK as the Mandatory. The UK just was part of the joint public announcement of record.

Nowhere in the entire Covenant, does it mention Palestine in any regard; let alone promise independence. The Covenant speaks about "certain communities" which could be given provisional recognition. These "certain communities" had been recognised by the Covenant itself, subject to the conditions that they are able to stand alone. The Palestinians, west of the Jordan River, were not then and are not now, able to stand alone without donor nation support, and external surveillance over security issues. However, within the territories to which the Mandate of Palestine applied, the provisional recognition to TransJordan was given special recognition under Article 22(4); as a nation that could be able to stand alone. On May 15, 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah. On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan. Don't confuse the successful transition of TransJordan from an Emirate to a Kingdom --- with the Palestine constituents west of the Jordan River.

TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN
HIS MAJESTY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
AND
HIS HIGHNESS THE AMIR OF TRANSJORDAN.
ARTICLE 1​

His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof. There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between His Majesty The King and His Highness The Amir of Trans-Jordan.​

At no point did the Arab Palestinians on the west of the Jordan River, ever demonstrate the stability, security, and comprehensive capacity to perform the executive functions normally associate with a self-governing nation that could stand alone.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians, west of the Jordan River, were not then and are not now, able to stand alone without donor nation support,​

Now that is funny. From Rothschild to little blue boxes to foreign "charity" to billions in military aid, Israel was created and exists on OPM.

Israel is the mooch capital of the world.

You show yourself, as usual, to be both willfully ignorant and profoundly dishonest.

Israel is hardly as you ignorantly and dishonestly describe. In fact, Israel is a world economy.

Israel Economy Facts & Stats

With your ignorance and dishonesty now addressed, discuss for us the "Plight of the Pal'istanians". Discuss for us the billions of welfare dollars that have been showered upon a group of welfare scammers who are incapable of cobbling together even the most rudimentary of social structures and conventions.

Please do make your usual excuses for a collection of Islamic terrorist misfits who have contributed nothing to the world community other than welfare fraud and the promotion of hate and misery.

the world economy, are you crazy. Its China, the EU and then the US. Israel is dependent on the US for aid. If they are the "world economy" they have best pay us back. They sponge off of all others. They hate the Evans but take their money, they bad mouth us but take our money. They are existent on OPM.

The EU is not a world economy at all as it is a group of nations that are a mixture of thriving and failing economies. Look at the EU nations that have failed in the last 10 years and had to be bailed out, one has been bailed out 3 times and still it struggles to exist.

The US is dependent on Israel for keeping many of its workers of the unemployment lines by laundering US money through aid and loans to get round international monopoly laws. Under the muslim POTUS the US has seen its credit rating drop to that of a third orld nation. The US also needs Israel to develop and prove new technology as it is fast losing the ability and resources to do it themselves. The American empire is reliant on China to provide the income to float the companies as the riches are fast dissappearing

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure this is true.

It wasn't aggression. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians from foreign colonial attack. They fought Israeli forces in Palestine. And contrary to Israels constant line of bullshit, they did not lose the war. They all exited the war completely intact.

How would that change Palestine's legal status?

(COMMENT)

At the conclusion of the Armistice agreements, for all intent and purposed --- there was no Palestine remaining.

• The Jordanians occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem; with the consent of the Palestinians - Jordan annexed the West Bank. The Jordanians got what they wanted.
• The Egyptians occupied the Gaza Strip and established a Military Governorship. The Egyptians got what they wanted.
• The Syria and Lebanon made no headway at all. Syria lost control if some DMZ areas along the Green Line; but sovereignty was not yet decided or established.
• The Israeli forces took control of isolated areas originally allotted by the UN as part of the Arab State.

For all intent and purposes, at the conclusion of the Armistice Agreements, of the territories originally allocated for the Arab State, there was none left. It had been divided three way between Israel, Egypt and Jordan.

You are correct. The only territory really lost to Israel was the territory formerly allocated the be part of the Arab State. The Arabs risked the territory of the Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

In 1939 Poland was occupied by Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, nothing was left of pre-1939 Poland but that did not mean that the Polish people reliquished their sovereignty over the Polish territory that existed before September 1939. Poles remained Poles and Palestinians still remained Palestinians.

And arab muslim illegal immigrants from Syria, Egypt, Saudi, Yemen et al still remain illegal immigrants no matter how much the UN alter the rules in their favour. And the same rules also apply to the Jews so after two years they are full fledged indigenous Palestinians.

 

[Phoenall]

"MANDATES A.
MEMORANDUM BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS. [Lord Curzon].
A FINAL decision about Mandates A is required. The Assembly of the League of Nations is concerned about their submission to the Council, and will probably not allow the gathering at Geneva to come to an end without a decision being taken on the point.
It is understood that the Council of the League is likely to hold a meeting while at Geneva to consider these Mandates, and it has been informed that they will be submitted without further delay. The Mandates concerned are those for Syria, Mesopotamia and Palestine.

Yeah, right!! hehe
“(2) The Mandate [for Palestine] is of a different type from the Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon and the draft Mandate for Iraq. These latter, which were called for convenience “A” Mandates, accorded with the fourth paragraph of Article 22. Thus the Syrian Mandate provided that the government should be based on an organic law which should take into account the rights, interests and wishes of all the inhabitants, and that measures should be enacted ‘to facilitate the progressive development of Syria and the Lebanon as independent States.’ The corresponding sentences of the draft Mandate for Iraq were the same. In compliance with them National Legislatures were established in due course on an elective basis. Article 1 of the Palestine Mandate, on the other hand, vests ‘full powers of legislation and of administration,’ within the limits of the Mandate, in the Mandatory.”
Palestine royal report, july, 1937.
The mandate palestine was not a Class A mandate. Iraq was.
Enjoy

Now this is an OUTSTANDING post as it destroys all the islamonazi propaganda in regards to the arab muslims having a nation prior to 1988.

 

[fanger]

Ignored Member said




Nada, I like it

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Where does that come from???

[

Under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the people of Palestine were to emerge as a fully independent nation at the end of the Mandate​

That is absolutely correct. I have contemplated that scenario myself.

The Mandatory power (Britain) was to render administrative assistance and advice until the people could stand alone. That done, Palestine would become an independent state and the Mandate would come to an end.

However, Britain failed to accomplish that goal. They passed the administration to the UNPC and left. So if that scenario is correct (that I believe it to be) then Palestine fell under the trusteeship of the UN. The UN failed to step in to protect the people and territory in its trust leaving us with the mess we are in now.

Thank you for bringing up this point, though. I never did because people are confused enough by the issues.

(COMMENT)

The UN Palestine Commission was designated the successor in GA RES 181(II) (Part I - Section B Steps Preparatory to Independence - Paragraph 1). It was not passed by the UK as the Mandatory. The UK just was part of the joint public announcement of record.

Nowhere in the entire Covenant, does it mention Palestine in any regard; let alone promise independence. The Covenant speaks about "certain communities" which could be given provisional recognition. These "certain communities" had been recognised by the Covenant itself, subject to the conditions that they are able to stand alone. The Palestinians, west of the Jordan River, were not then and are not now, able to stand alone without donor nation support, and external surveillance over security issues. However, within the territories to which the Mandate of Palestine applied, the provisional recognition to TransJordan was given special recognition under Article 22(4); as a nation that could be able to stand alone. On May 15, 1923, Britain formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah. On March 22, 1946, Abdullah negotiated a new Anglo-Transjordanian treaty, ending the British mandate and gaining full independence for Transjordan. Don't confuse the successful transition of TransJordan from an Emirate to a Kingdom --- with the Palestine constituents west of the Jordan River.

TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN
HIS MAJESTY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
AND
HIS HIGHNESS THE AMIR OF TRANSJORDAN.
ARTICLE 1​

His Majesty The King recognises Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof. There shall be perpetual peace and friendship between His Majesty The King and His Highness The Amir of Trans-Jordan.​

At no point did the Arab Palestinians on the west of the Jordan River, ever demonstrate the stability, security, and comprehensive capacity to perform the executive functions normally associate with a self-governing nation that could stand alone.

Most Respectfully,
R

At no point did the Arab Palestinians on the west of the Jordan River, ever demonstrate the stability, security, and comprehensive capacity to perform the executive functions normally associate with a self-governing nation that could stand alone.​

Britain prevented that from happening. That is why they kept a military presence for a civilian function.

How did Britain do this, did they gag every single arab in the west bank so they could not proclaim they were ready to take up the reins of power ? You really need to take a long hard look at the requirements and how they are put into place, every step was the people showing their ability to form a government, run a country, raise taxes, show ability to enforce the taws and be fully independent. The arab muslims of Jewish Palestine have consistently shown that they are incapable of achieving any of these aims

How did Britain do this, did they gag every single arab in the west bank so they could not proclaim they were ready to take up the reins of power ?​

Britain closed down Palestinian organizations by force, arresting, exiling, or killing their leaders.

So, yes, you could say that. That is why they kept a military presence for a civilian function.

 

[montelatici]

"MANDATES A.
MEMORANDUM BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS. [Lord Curzon].
A FINAL decision about Mandates A is required. The Assembly of the League of Nations is concerned about their submission to the Council, and will probably not allow the gathering at Geneva to come to an end without a decision being taken on the point.
It is understood that the Council of the League is likely to hold a meeting while at Geneva to consider these Mandates, and it has been informed that they will be submitted without further delay. The Mandates concerned are those for Syria, Mesopotamia and Palestine.

Yeah, right!! hehe
“(2) The Mandate [for Palestine] is of a different type from the Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon and the draft Mandate for Iraq. These latter, which were called for convenience “A” Mandates, accorded with the fourth paragraph of Article 22. Thus the Syrian Mandate provided that the government should be based on an organic law which should take into account the rights, interests and wishes of all the inhabitants, and that measures should be enacted ‘to facilitate the progressive development of Syria and the Lebanon as independent States.’ The corresponding sentences of the draft Mandate for Iraq were the same. In compliance with them National Legislatures were established in due course on an elective basis. Article 1 of the Palestine Mandate, on the other hand, vests ‘full powers of legislation and of administration,’ within the limits of the Mandate, in the Mandatory.”
Palestine royal report, july, 1937.
The mandate palestine was not a Class A mandate. Iraq was.
Enjoy

No, the Memorandum clearly states that the Palestine Mandate was to be a Class A mandate as required by the French and Italians in order for them to agree to approve the Palestine Mandate. That is why it is prefaced with Mandates A. and includes Syria, Mesopotamia and Palestine. Iraq did not exist at the time you moron.

In any case the Peel Commission Report you quote was disavowed by the later Woodhead Commission Report and neither have any legal standing being opinions and recommendations.

 

[RoccoR]

Challenger, et al,

Again, an improper analogy!

P F Tinmore, et al,

I'm not sure this is true.

It wasn't aggression. They entered Palestine to defend the Palestinians from foreign colonial attack. They fought Israeli forces in Palestine. And contrary to Israels constant line of bullshit, they did not lose the war. They all exited the war completely intact.

How would that change Palestine's legal status?

(COMMENT)

At the conclusion of the Armistice agreements, for all intent and purposed --- there was no Palestine remaining.

• The Jordanians occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem; with the consent of the Palestinians - Jordan annexed the West Bank. The Jordanians got what they wanted.
• The Egyptians occupied the Gaza Strip and established a Military Governorship. The Egyptians got what they wanted.
• The Syria and Lebanon made no headway at all. Syria lost control if some DMZ areas along the Green Line; but sovereignty was not yet decided or established.
• The Israeli forces took control of isolated areas originally allotted by the UN as part of the Arab State.

For all intent and purposes, at the conclusion of the Armistice Agreements, of the territories originally allocated for the Arab State, there was none left. It had been divided three way between Israel, Egypt and Jordan.

You are correct. The only territory really lost to Israel was the territory formerly allocated the be part of the Arab State. The Arabs risked the territory of the Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

In 1939 Poland was occupied by Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, nothing was left of pre-1939 Poland but that did not mean that the Polish people reliquished their sovereignty over the Polish territory that existed before September 1939. Poles remained Poles and Palestinians still remained Palestinians.

(COMMENT)

The Polish were sovereign and independent people prior to the invasion. While it is true that (from 1795 until 1918) no truly independent Polish state existed, prior to the end of WWI, from 1918 until the Nazi and Russian takeover in 1939, the Second Polish Republic, was a sovereign power over Poland. Much different a history than the Arab Palestinians.

The Arab Palestinians have not been sovereign or independent for nearly a 1000 years; not until 1988. Prior to the surrender (1918 Armistice of Mudros) of the Ottoman Empire to the Allied Powers, what is today called the Arab Palestinian, was (in fact) Arab Ottomans.

In 1914 what became known as the Territory to which the Mandate of Palestine applied, there was to the East of the Jordan River, in the Vilayet (Province) of Syria, the three Sanjaks (administrative divisions/districts) of Damascus, Hauran and Maan which were either in whole or in part included. Similarly, there was to the West of the Jordan River, in the Vilayet of Beirut, the three Sanjaks of Berirut, Acre, and Balqa. Additionally, and because of its religious significance, was the administratively separate Sanjak of Jerusalem; which reported directly to the Vilayet Government of Syria. Damascus was both the Beylerbeylik (governor-generalship/provincial seat) and a Sanjak locally. BUT their was no administrative subdivision in the Ottoman Empire known as "Palestine." Nor was it a legal entity. It was a ancient name for a regional area that had no particular boundary.

Most Respectfully,
R