Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Ze'ev Jabotinsky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, self defense is a joke. Israel is the country that has not ended their terrorism, if its too quiet, they will create turmoil to keep their settlements grown, and they use the "poor me " card to the max. It was always the intention to take over Palestine and get rid of the Brits and arabs.Penelope, et al,
Oh Please...
(OBSERVATION and REFERENCE)Let the Saudis or Syrians or Jordanians or Somalians deal with them.The Jewish people were not colonizing a place because they thought they would be welcome there or because there was lots of empty space. The Jewish people were not colonizing at all. The Jewish people were returning to a homeland from which they were forcibly removed -- a homeland of great physical and emotional connection. A homeland from which we grew and became established and created a history.Maybe Israel should have colonized a different country.
Why is the Jewish attachment to our homeland so much LESS of significance than the Palestinian attachment to their home?
If your response is the solution to the conflict -- why don't we just remove all the Palestinians to their own territory -- suggestions have so far included the US generally, Wisconsin specifically, Uganda, Madagascar and I believe Western Australia. Which would the Palestinians like to have?
No point in inflicting 4-5 million Arab losers on any part of modern Christendom.
Rather than penalizing NPOs for funding Israeli settlements...
Why don't we encourage NPOs to fund a resettlement of the dumb-ass Palestinians, in some other part of the Muslim world?
Let the Arabs deal with their own mad dogs.
Palestinians were there first, haven't you heard, the Irgun and Lehi groups were known as terrorist by the US, Britain, UN, and even get this the Zionist Organization.
• The Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigade is named after the militant anti-Zionist opponent (of the same same) of in 1920s and 1930s. Sheikh Izz ad-Din al Qassam was a Islamic Revivalist Missionary --- turned --- Radicalized Islamic Fundamentalist. Sheikh al-Qassam, was a known criminal associate of Hajj Amin al-Husseini, a former Ottoman Army Officer --- turned ---cleric and later appointed as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. After the 1929 Riots in Jerusalem, Sheikh al-Qassam founded the Palestinian Black Hand; a Jihadist Group responsible for the terrorist campaign between the 1929 Riots and the 1939 Arab Revolt.
• The Lehi Group (AKA Stern Gang) was a splinter group that formed out of the Irgun in 1940 (stood down and was demilitarized in December 1948). The Irgun (AKA: Etzel) was a Revisionist splinter group formed in 1931 out of the Haganah. The Irgun was reintegrated and assimilated into the Haganah in May 1948, which transitioned into the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) on Independence Day. In October 1945 the Jewish Agency attempted to re-organized the Haganah, Irgun and Lehi into a consolidated paramilitary command known as the Jewish Resistance Movement (JRM). The JRM was short lived as a central force with a unified command.
(COMMENT)
I am, and most people are, aware that the Irgun and the Lehi were considered extremist groups that carried out acts of sabotage and terrorism against the British Civil Authorities and Military Activities. As we also know, both sides (Jewish and Arab), until 1948, were known to engage in such nefarious activities. Yet, Israel eventually evolved out of that character, as did the Egyptians, Jordanians, and Lebanese. But the Arab-Palestinians did not. And it is not expected that they will anytime soon. The legacy of Izz ad-Din al- Qassam lives on in the Military Wing of HAMAS, and honored in the locally made rocket it fires. The legacy lives on every time the Palestinians kidnap and murder the unarmed,
attack place civilians objects of no military value, hijack ships and planes, ambush buses of the aged tourists and school children .... Arab-Palestinians are known for their seven decades of all horrendous and abhorrent act of a dishonorable nature. These Arab attacks target the young and the infirm, as well as the old and disabled; those that can't defend themselves. They are much too ashamed to engage the IDF mano-a-mano.
"The first Arab riots of the Mandate period took place in Jerusalem in the intermediary days of Passover, in March 1920 (“Bloody Passover”). They were instigated by Arabs acting on unfounded rumors of Jewish actions against Arabs. The British military authorities did not intervene in the Arab attacks, while Vladimir Jabotinsky and other Jews were arrested for organizing a self-defense league. In April 1920, Joseph Trumpeldorand others were killed in the defense of Tel Hai, a settlement in the Upper Galilee. These developments led to the founding of the Haganah on June 15, 1920."
SOURCE: Palestine Facts
Most Respectfully,
R
Ze'ev Jabotinsky - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, self defense is a joke. Israel is the country that has not ended their terrorism, if its too quiet, they will create turmoil to keep their settlements grown, and they use the "poor me " card to the max. It was always the intention to take over Palestine and get rid of the Brits and arabs.Penelope, et al,
Oh Please...
(OBSERVATION and REFERENCE)Let the Saudis or Syrians or Jordanians or Somalians deal with them.The Jewish people were not colonizing a place because they thought they would be welcome there or because there was lots of empty space. The Jewish people were not colonizing at all. The Jewish people were returning to a homeland from which they were forcibly removed -- a homeland of great physical and emotional connection. A homeland from which we grew and became established and created a history.Maybe Israel should have colonized a different country.
Why is the Jewish attachment to our homeland so much LESS of significance than the Palestinian attachment to their home?
If your response is the solution to the conflict -- why don't we just remove all the Palestinians to their own territory -- suggestions have so far included the US generally, Wisconsin specifically, Uganda, Madagascar and I believe Western Australia. Which would the Palestinians like to have?
No point in inflicting 4-5 million Arab losers on any part of modern Christendom.
Rather than penalizing NPOs for funding Israeli settlements...
Why don't we encourage NPOs to fund a resettlement of the dumb-ass Palestinians, in some other part of the Muslim world?
Let the Arabs deal with their own mad dogs.
Palestinians were there first, haven't you heard, the Irgun and Lehi groups were known as terrorist by the US, Britain, UN, and even get this the Zionist Organization.
• The Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigade is named after the militant anti-Zionist opponent (of the same same) of in 1920s and 1930s. Sheikh Izz ad-Din al Qassam was a Islamic Revivalist Missionary --- turned --- Radicalized Islamic Fundamentalist. Sheikh al-Qassam, was a known criminal associate of Hajj Amin al-Husseini, a former Ottoman Army Officer --- turned ---cleric and later appointed as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. After the 1929 Riots in Jerusalem, Sheikh al-Qassam founded the Palestinian Black Hand; a Jihadist Group responsible for the terrorist campaign between the 1929 Riots and the 1939 Arab Revolt.
• The Lehi Group (AKA Stern Gang) was a splinter group that formed out of the Irgun in 1940 (stood down and was demilitarized in December 1948). The Irgun (AKA: Etzel) was a Revisionist splinter group formed in 1931 out of the Haganah. The Irgun was reintegrated and assimilated into the Haganah in May 1948, which transitioned into the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) on Independence Day. In October 1945 the Jewish Agency attempted to re-organized the Haganah, Irgun and Lehi into a consolidated paramilitary command known as the Jewish Resistance Movement (JRM). The JRM was short lived as a central force with a unified command.
(COMMENT)
I am, and most people are, aware that the Irgun and the Lehi were considered extremist groups that carried out acts of sabotage and terrorism against the British Civil Authorities and Military Activities. As we also know, both sides (Jewish and Arab), until 1948, were known to engage in such nefarious activities. Yet, Israel eventually evolved out of that character, as did the Egyptians, Jordanians, and Lebanese. But the Arab-Palestinians did not. And it is not expected that they will anytime soon. The legacy of Izz ad-Din al- Qassam lives on in the Military Wing of HAMAS, and honored in the locally made rocket it fires. The legacy lives on every time the Palestinians kidnap and murder the unarmed,
attack place civilians objects of no military value, hijack ships and planes, ambush buses of the aged tourists and school children .... Arab-Palestinians are known for their seven decades of all horrendous and abhorrent act of a dishonorable nature. These Arab attacks target the young and the infirm, as well as the old and disabled; those that can't defend themselves. They are much too ashamed to engage the IDF mano-a-mano.
"The first Arab riots of the Mandate period took place in Jerusalem in the intermediary days of Passover, in March 1920 (“Bloody Passover”). They were instigated by Arabs acting on unfounded rumors of Jewish actions against Arabs. The British military authorities did not intervene in the Arab attacks, while Vladimir Jabotinsky and other Jews were arrested for organizing a self-defense league. In April 1920, Joseph Trumpeldorand others were killed in the defense of Tel Hai, a settlement in the Upper Galilee. These developments led to the founding of the Haganah on June 15, 1920."
SOURCE: Palestine Facts
Most Respectfully,
R
Irgun and Haganah were created to protect Jews after several Arab Muslim massacres, including that of the ancient Jews of Hebron in 1929.
In other words, the Jews took arms to protect themselves from the Islamic Nazis.
Irgun and Haganah were created to protect Jews after several Arab Muslim massacres, including that of the ancient Jews of Hebron in 1929.
In other words, the Jews took arms to protect themselves from the Islamic Nazis.
(COMMENT)The Zionist terrorists were formed to facilitate the invasion of Palestine by the Europeans.
Yada yada yada. Israel has been Jewish ancestral, spiritual, religious, and historical homeland for over 4000 years. Arab Muslims have invaded, terrorized and occupied over 99% of the Middle East, leaving Israel as the only non Muslim non Islamic nation in the Middle East. Israel will continue to be victorious over Palestinian Arab Islamic Nazi terrorism.Irgun and Haganah were created to protect Jews after several Arab Muslim massacres, including that of the ancient Jews of Hebron in 1929.
In other words, the Jews took arms to protect themselves from the Islamic Nazis.
The Zionist terrorists were formed to facilitate the invasion of Palestine by the Europeans.
My history tells me Islam at its core is Arab Muslim imperialism, intolerance, and savagery.Irgun and Haganah were created to protect Jews after several Arab Muslim massacres, including that of the ancient Jews of Hebron in 1929.
In other words, the Jews took arms to protect themselves from the Islamic Nazis.
You best read your history better.
montelatici, et al,
This is a very good pro-Palestinian story line, but light-years from the truth.
(COMMENT)The Zionist terrorists were formed to facilitate the invasion of Palestine by the Europeans.
The Keynote elements to the discussion:
• The Jewish Immigration was not an invasion. The immigration was authorized by the Allied Powers as holder of the title and rights to the territory.
• The Hostile Arab activities were to undermine the power and authority Allied Powers to establish the Jewish National Home.
• The Hostile Arab Activity was to subvert (through the use of political subterfuge, propaganda and force) the Ottoman/Turk renouncement of territorial title, rights and sovereignty to the Allied Powers as remanded by a peace treaty.
The Primary Salient Points:
• The territory was NOT relinquished the the Arab Palestinians.
• The enemy inhabitants and citizens of the former Ottoman Empire (Arab Palestinian) were NOT abiding by Article 16 of the Peace Treaty of Lausanne.
• The Arab Palestinians were using force to achieve by criminal coercion and terrorism --- political and territorial objectives; control over territory that was NOT granted to them by the previous sovereign.
It may be hard to understand, by the immigration of the Jewish people into the territory under Mandate, was granted and encouraged by the lawful power given the Mandate by the Allied Powers holding the title and rights passed-on by the previous sovereign power.
• It does not matter if the Allied Powers (holder of the title and rights) were European.
• It does not matter from where the Mandatory originated.
• It does not matter where the Jewish Immigrants came from (Europe or otherwise).
All that matters is that the Allied Powers agreed at San Remo, to entrust to a Great Britain the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire. The scope, nature and character of the Administration was to be controlled, overseen and evaluated by the Allied Powers; not the Arab Palestinians.
The Arab Palestinians have no authority to invoke any aspect of the Covenant for the League of Nations. The Arab Palestinians are not a party to the agreement. The High Contracting Parties (NOT the Arab Palestinian) Agree to the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Covenant does not promise the Arab Palestinian anything; either implied or explicit. The obligations are made relative to the Allied Powers.
Most Respectfully,
R
And the Native Americans (Indians) were in North America first... so what?... they couldn't hold it... primitive cultures give way to more powerful and sophisticated ones.Let the Saudis or Syrians or Jordanians or Somalians deal with them.The Jewish people were not colonizing a place because they thought they would be welcome there or because there was lots of empty space. The Jewish people were not colonizing at all. The Jewish people were returning to a homeland from which they were forcibly removed -- a homeland of great physical and emotional connection. A homeland from which we grew and became established and created a history.Maybe Israel should have colonized a different country.
Why is the Jewish attachment to our homeland so much LESS of significance than the Palestinian attachment to their home?
If your response is the solution to the conflict -- why don't we just remove all the Palestinians to their own territory -- suggestions have so far included the US generally, Wisconsin specifically, Uganda, Madagascar and I believe Western Australia. Which would the Palestinians like to have?
No point in inflicting 4-5 million Arab losers on any part of modern Christendom.
Rather than penalizing NPOs for funding Israeli settlements...
Why don't we encourage NPOs to fund a resettlement of the dumb-ass Palestinians, in some other part of the Muslim world?
Let the Arabs deal with their own mad dogs.
Palestinians were there first, haven't you heard, the Irgum and Lehi groups were known as terrorist by the US, Britain, UN, and even get this the Zionist Organization.
"And the Native Americans (Indians) were in North America first... so what?... they couldn't hold it... primitive cultures give way to more powerful and sophisticated ones."
And yet, the Palestinians now outnumber the Jews in the territory ruled by Jews.
And then, I recall that the Boers had developed nukes, yet who is in charge now?
(COMMENT)1. Of course it was an invasion. It doesn't matter if the invasion is was authorized by a specific authority. The European invasion of the Americas was rife with charters and other legal instruments.
2. The Covenant of the League of Nations addressed the rights of the inhabitants of the territories in question specifically.
3. The Mandate contravened the Covenant of the League of Nations specifically Articles 20 and 22.
"ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."
"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."
The Zionist Jews were not inhabiting said territories. They were in Europe.
Irgun and Haganah were created to protect Jews after several Arab Muslim massacres, including that of the ancient Jews of Hebron in 1929.
In other words, the Jews took arms to protect themselves from the Islamic Nazis.
The Zionist terrorists were formed to facilitate the invasion of Palestine by the Europeans.
But the Mandate flopped under its own stupidity, so what does it matter?montelatici, et al,
Well, you keep copying this to the board, as if your interpretation is the correct interpretation.
(COMMENT)1. Of course it was an invasion. It doesn't matter if the invasion is was authorized by a specific authority. The European invasion of the Americas was rife with charters and other legal instruments.
2. The Covenant of the League of Nations addressed the rights of the inhabitants of the territories in question specifically.
3. The Mandate contravened the Covenant of the League of Nations specifically Articles 20 and 22.
"ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."
"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."
The Zionist Jews were not inhabiting said territories. They were in Europe.
• First: The Covenant is an agreement between the members of the covenant. The obligations are between the members and NOT the Arab Palestinians (or non-members). While the covenant may talk about the inhabitants, it does not speak to the inhabitants. t only speaks to members. There is absolutely no promise imbedded in the Covenant pertaining to the Arab Palestinians. And no consummated promise is made by any member and the Arab Palestinians. The Arab Palestinians are NOT a High Contracting Party.
• Second: It is the Mandate that gives meaning to Article 22 in the form of a Mandate. Article 22 is the framework, for the purpose of giving guidance. The Council nor the Allied Powers ask or direct anything of the Arab Palestinian, nor promise anything to or for the Arab Palestinian.
The Council of the League of Nations:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them;
• Finally: The Mandate for Palestine set the initial condition and objectives. Again, the Mandate does not speak to the Arab Palestinians. It is an official order from the Allied Powers with a commission for the HM's Government, as adopted by the Allied Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. In fact, there is no directive, mandate, order in council, or other promissory document that establishes an obligation between any member of the Allied Powers and the Arab Palestinian.
The underlying idea behind a Covenant, is a promise, declaration or assurance that a party (or parties) will do a particular thing --- or --- that a particular thing will happen.
(QUESTION)
What document, wherein the Allied Powers (or Members of the Covenant) represent a party to an agreement make a promise in the agreement to the Arab Palestinians --- WHEREIN --- the Arab Palestinians are a party to the agreement, the recipient of the promise?
(ANSWER)
There is no such document, or record of a promise made to the Arab Palestinians. The Arab Palestinians were never a party to any Covenant, Treaty or Mandate.
Most Respectfully,
R
montelatici, et al,
Well, you keep copying this to the board, as if your interpretation is the correct interpretation.
(COMMENT)1. Of course it was an invasion. It doesn't matter if the invasion is was authorized by a specific authority. The European invasion of the Americas was rife with charters and other legal instruments.
2. The Covenant of the League of Nations addressed the rights of the inhabitants of the territories in question specifically.
3. The Mandate contravened the Covenant of the League of Nations specifically Articles 20 and 22.
"ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."
"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."
The Zionist Jews were not inhabiting said territories. They were in Europe.
• First: The Covenant is an agreement between the members of the covenant. The obligations are between the members and NOT the Arab Palestinians (or non-members). While the covenant may talk about the inhabitants, it does not speak to the inhabitants. t only speaks to members. There is absolutely no promise imbedded in the Covenant pertaining to the Arab Palestinians. And no consummated promise is made by any member and the Arab Palestinians. The Arab Palestinians are NOT a High Contracting Party.
• Second: It is the Mandate that gives meaning to Article 22 in the form of a Mandate. Article 22 is the framework, for the purpose of giving guidance. The Council nor the Allied Powers ask or direct anything of the Arab Palestinian, nor promise anything to or for the Arab Palestinian.
The Council of the League of Nations:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them;
• Finally: The Mandate for Palestine set the initial condition and objectives. Again, the Mandate does not speak to the Arab Palestinians. It is an official order from the Allied Powers with a commission for the HM's Government, as adopted by the Allied Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. In fact, there is no directive, mandate, order in council, or other promissory document that establishes an obligation between any member of the Allied Powers and the Arab Palestinian.
The underlying idea behind a Covenant, is a promise, declaration or assurance that a party (or parties) will do a particular thing --- or --- that a particular thing will happen.
(QUESTION)
What document, wherein the Allied Powers (or Members of the Covenant) represent a party to an agreement make a promise in the agreement to the Arab Palestinians --- WHEREIN --- the Arab Palestinians are a party to the agreement, the recipient of the promise?
(ANSWER)
There is no such document, or record of a promise made to the Arab Palestinians. The Arab Palestinians were never a party to any Covenant, Treaty or Mandate.
Most Respectfully,
R
montelatici, et al,
This is a very good pro-Palestinian story line, but light-years from the truth.
(COMMENT)The Zionist terrorists were formed to facilitate the invasion of Palestine by the Europeans.
The Keynote elements to the discussion:
• The Jewish Immigration was not an invasion. The immigration was authorized by the Allied Powers as holder of the title and rights to the territory.
• The Hostile Arab activities were to undermine the power and authority Allied Powers to establish the Jewish National Home.
• The Hostile Arab Activity was to subvert (through the use of political subterfuge, propaganda and force) the Ottoman/Turk renouncement of territorial title, rights and sovereignty to the Allied Powers as remanded by a peace treaty.
The Primary Salient Points:
• The territory was NOT relinquished the the Arab Palestinians.
• The enemy inhabitants and citizens of the former Ottoman Empire (Arab Palestinian) were NOT abiding by Article 16 of the Peace Treaty of Lausanne.
• The Arab Palestinians were using force to achieve by criminal coercion and terrorism --- political and territorial objectives; control over territory that was NOT granted to them by the previous sovereign.
It may be hard to understand, by the immigration of the Jewish people into the territory under Mandate, was granted and encouraged by the lawful power given the Mandate by the Allied Powers holding the title and rights passed-on by the previous sovereign power.
• It does not matter if the Allied Powers (holder of the title and rights) were European.
• It does not matter from where the Mandatory originated.
• It does not matter where the Jewish Immigrants came from (Europe or otherwise).
All that matters is that the Allied Powers agreed at San Remo, to entrust to a Great Britain the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire. The scope, nature and character of the Administration was to be controlled, overseen and evaluated by the Allied Powers; not the Arab Palestinians.
The Arab Palestinians have no authority to invoke any aspect of the Covenant for the League of Nations. The Arab Palestinians are not a party to the agreement. The High Contracting Parties (NOT the Arab Palestinian) Agree to the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Covenant does not promise the Arab Palestinian anything; either implied or explicit. The obligations are made relative to the Allied Powers.
Most Respectfully,
R
1. Of course it was an invasion. It doesn't matter if the invasion is was authorized by a specific authority. The European invasion of the Americas was rife with charters and other legal instruments.
2. The Covenant of the League of Nations addressed the rights of the inhabitants of the territories in question specifically.
3. The Mandate contravened the Covenant of the League of Nations specifically Articles 20 and 22.
"ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."
"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."
The Zionist Jews were not inhabiting said territories. They were in Europe.
"And the Native Americans (Indians) were in North America first... so what?... they couldn't hold it... primitive cultures give way to more powerful and sophisticated ones."
And yet, the Palestinians now outnumber the Jews in the territory ruled by Jews.
And then, I recall that the Boers had developed nukes, yet who is in charge now?
