montelatici, et al,
Yeah ... but again --- who's sovereignty was it.
(COMMENT)Ok, you can call the Palestinians "Martians". It doesn't change the fact that they were the inhabitants of the area defined as Palestine and the European Jews colonized and dispossessed them. Nothing else matters.
It does not matter what you call the "inhabitants." It was not their territory to assume. The Sovereign Power of the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic pass the "rights and title" to the Allied Powers.
Gandhi did not benefit the Indian/Pakistani people; either in terms of well being or development. And those Arab Palestinians that want to continue the downward spiral of their peoples development, are not working in the best interest of the people.
Most Respectfully,
R
Of course it was their territory. It was the inhabitants territory, pursuant to the agreement between the allies, i.e. the Covenant of the League of Nations Article 22. The Allied Powers that elected to become Mandatories held it in trust for the inhabitants. It doesn't matter whether Gandhi did or did not benefit the Indian people or if the leaders of Palestine would have or would have not benefitted the inhabitants of Palestine. The point is, European colonists had no with to the territory.
So when did Arafat the Egyptian acquire his rights to the territory then, or the Saudi deserters that invaded in 1947, 1967 and 1973. The vast majority of so called Palestinians by their own confessions are illegal immigrants. The covenant is for the LoN not for the inhabitants of the lands. And if you read the covenant and the mandates you see that in the case of Palestine it applies to the Jews and Jordan