Palestine Today

[toomuchtime_]

Another Palestinian demanding her right to kill Jews without interference.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Thank you so much guys
Message us on 2 Suns Shamsaan or on my page

 

[rylah]

Thank you so much guys
Message us on 2 Suns Shamsaan or on my page

Palestinian mentality:

When "becoming a great person, reaching dreams..."

is asking you to donate for her sister's campaign of suicide bombings.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Another Palestinian demanding her right to kill Jews without interference.

Sick culture and society.

 

[rylah]

Hamas Leader: Palestine for us is Like a Toothpick.
Our Goals are Much Bigger i.e. Global Caliphate

Let the truth be heard

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

IF you are not going to read (and comprehend) the Treaty excerpt, THEN there is not much I can say to help you.

Why all of the deflection?

First off, the Territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine was in the hands of the Allied Powers.

Not true. The Mandates did not acquire sovereignty over the territory. They could not do with it whatever it wanted.

(COMMENT)

The Allied Powers did not take sovereignty because it was illegal (Turkey renounced all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers). The Allied Powers, at that time in history, how to handle such issues emerging in the 20th Century, were debated vigorously. But in those days, the Allied Powers (San Remo Convention) could very well have assumed soverenty (if they wanted). But the Allied Powers, early on, had decided to set the conditions for a Jewish National Home (Israel), and later made the recommendation to partition the territory, for an Arab State to the East of the Jordan River (Jordan), and a Arab State (what is now spoke of as the State of Palestine as of December 2012) in the partition West of the Jordan River. The end fighting and political demands made by the Arab Palestinians West of the Jordan River was just unacceptable. The treaty did not relinquish the rights and title to the Arab Palestinians, but to the Allied Powers. And while the Allied Powers attempted to negotiate a settlement to the disputes, in the end, the Arab Palestinians believed that to take that territory earmarked for the Jewish State by force (via the Arab League Forces). The outcome was a major bunder for the Arab Palestinians. Jordan took what they wanted and Egypt took what they wanted. The outcome was a major step backward for the Arab Palestinians. And the adopted strategy to liberate the territory by force has actually worked against the Arab Palestinians.



Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

IF you are not going to read (and comprehend) the Treaty excerpt, THEN there is not much I can say to help you.

Why all of the deflection?

First off, the Territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine was in the hands of the Allied Powers.

Not true. The Mandates did not acquire sovereignty over the territory. They could not do with it whatever it wanted.

(COMMENT)

The Allied Powers did not take sovereignty because it was illegal (Turkey renounced all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers). The Allied Powers, at that time in history, how to handle such issues emerging in the 20th Century, were debated vigorously. But in those days, the Allied Powers (San Remo Convention) could very well have assumed soverenty (if they wanted). But the Allied Powers, early on, had decided to set the conditions for a Jewish National Home (Israel), and later made the recommendation to partition the territory, for an Arab State to the East of the Jordan River (Jordan), and a Arab State (what is now spoke of as the State of Palestine as of December 2012) in the partition West of the Jordan River. The end fighting and political demands made by the Arab Palestinians West of the Jordan River was just unacceptable. The treaty did not relinquish the rights and title to the Arab Palestinians, but to the Allied Powers. And while the Allied Powers attempted to negotiate a settlement to the disputes, in the end, the Arab Palestinians believed that to take that territory earmarked for the Jewish State by force (via the Arab League Forces). The outcome was a major bunder for the Arab Palestinians. Jordan took what they wanted and Egypt took what they wanted. The outcome was a major step backward for the Arab Palestinians. And the adopted strategy to liberate the territory by force has actually worked against the Arab Palestinians.



Most Respectfully,
R

The Allied Powers did not take sovereignty because it was illegal

Why are they doing all that shit in a territory where they have no sovereignty?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Let's get the quote correct AND IN IT'S CONTEXT.

"The Allied Powers did not take sovereignty because it was illegal (Turkey renounced all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers). "

Because it was, in actuality, not illegal but → completely lawful.

The Allied Powers did not take sovereignty because it was illegal

Why are they doing all that shit in a territory where they have no sovereignty?

(COMMENT)

It was not Arab Palestinian territory. The Arab Palestinians did not have any sovereignty at all (not for a thousand years). All this talk about sovereignty overshadows the fact that the Arab Palestinians had no sovereignty either. And that the Arab Palestinians were (at that time) were the principles of the Occupied Enemy Territory.

The Allied Powers acted in a way that they felt was appropriate and would achieve the central issue within the Mandate: putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917 → "in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."

Seldom do critical political decisions appease all the parties it touches.

The Arab Palestinians would have been much better off today if they had cooperated with the Partition. They could have been very prosperous and developed as nations in the region are. But the Arab Palestinians did not work in their own best interest. On the contrary, they were enveloped by a need for wealth and power; not unlike what the political cast in Ramallah and Gaza (hundreds of millionaires) are today.

The Arab Palestinians like to jazz the argument up with political platitudes → but once you get past all the graft, fraud and corruption within the leadership, you see the true objectives: wealth and power.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Let's get the quote correct AND IN IT'S CONTEXT.

"The Allied Powers did not take sovereignty because it was illegal (Turkey renounced all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers). "

Because it was, in actuality, not illegal but → completely lawful.

The Allied Powers did not take sovereignty because it was illegal

Why are they doing all that shit in a territory where they have no sovereignty?

(COMMENT)

It was not Arab Palestinian territory. The Arab Palestinians did not have any sovereignty at all (not for a thousand years). All this talk about sovereignty overshadows the fact that the Arab Palestinians had no sovereignty either. And that the Arab Palestinians were (at that time) were the principles of the Occupied Enemy Territory.

The Allied Powers acted in a way that they felt was appropriate and would achieve the central issue within the Mandate: putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917 → "in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."

Seldom do critical political decisions appease all the parties it touches.

The Arab Palestinians would have been much better off today if they had cooperated with the Partition. They could have been very prosperous and developed as nations in the region are. But the Arab Palestinians did not work in their own best interest. On the contrary, they were enveloped by a need for wealth and power; not unlike what the political cast in Ramallah and Gaza (hundreds of millionaires) are today.

The Arab Palestinians like to jazz the argument up with political platitudes → but once you get past all the graft, fraud and corruption within the leadership, you see the true objectives: wealth and power.


Most Respectfully,
R

It was not Arab Palestinian territory. The Arab Palestinians did not have any sovereignty at all (not for a thousand years). All this talk about sovereignty overshadows the fact that the Arab Palestinians had no sovereignty either.

The UN states that the Palestinians, in Palestine, have the right to self determination, the right to independence and sovereignty and the right to territorial integrity.

You claim that the Palestinians did not have any rights when the country was founded. The UN says different.

At what point in time did the Palestinians obtain these rights? What triggered that event?

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[ForeverYoung436]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Let's get the quote correct AND IN IT'S CONTEXT.

"The Allied Powers did not take sovereignty because it was illegal (Turkey renounced all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers). "

Because it was, in actuality, not illegal but → completely lawful.

The Allied Powers did not take sovereignty because it was illegal

Why are they doing all that shit in a territory where they have no sovereignty?

(COMMENT)

It was not Arab Palestinian territory. The Arab Palestinians did not have any sovereignty at all (not for a thousand years). All this talk about sovereignty overshadows the fact that the Arab Palestinians had no sovereignty either. And that the Arab Palestinians were (at that time) were the principles of the Occupied Enemy Territory.

The Allied Powers acted in a way that they felt was appropriate and would achieve the central issue within the Mandate: putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917 → "in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."

Seldom do critical political decisions appease all the parties it touches.

The Arab Palestinians would have been much better off today if they had cooperated with the Partition. They could have been very prosperous and developed as nations in the region are. But the Arab Palestinians did not work in their own best interest. On the contrary, they were enveloped by a need for wealth and power; not unlike what the political cast in Ramallah and Gaza (hundreds of millionaires) are today.

The Arab Palestinians like to jazz the argument up with political platitudes → but once you get past all the graft, fraud and corruption within the leadership, you see the true objectives: wealth and power.


Most Respectfully,
R

It was not Arab Palestinian territory. The Arab Palestinians did not have any sovereignty at all (not for a thousand years). All this talk about sovereignty overshadows the fact that the Arab Palestinians had no sovereignty either.

The UN states that the Palestinians, in Palestine, have the right to self determination, the right to independence and sovereignty and the right to territorial integrity.

You claim that the Palestinians did not have any rights when the country was founded. The UN says different.

At what point in time did the Palestinians obtain these rights? What triggered that event?

You only quote and use the U.N. when it's to your advantage and convenience. Israel is a member state of the U.N., so it obviously also has a right to self-determination, sovereignty and independence, or else it would not have been accepted into that organization. So, according to the U.N., both peoples have that right. This can only be accomplished by 2 states, according to your own logic, and not by Palestine taking over that whole small area. And don't think it's so easy for Israel to give up its ancestral heartland in the West Bank either!

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, you are correct. Theoretically, ALL people, Everywhere, have these rights. They are not at all unique to the Arab Palestinian (including the Jewish Immigrants).

BLUF: If we are to respect the rights of the combative Arab Palestinian, then we must also insist that all parties equally respect the rights of the Cooperative Jewish Immigrant. The fact that the Jewish movement acted first and in concert with the Allied Powers is not a justification for the hostilities perpetrated by the Arab Palestinian.

◈ The right to self determination [Part I, Article 1(1), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)]
◈ The right to territorial integrity and political independence [Chapter I, Article 2(4), UN Charter]
◈ The right to sovereign equality applies to international status of a sovereign, independent State (not people). [Articles 2(1), 78, UN Charter]​

Individual (personal) Sovereignty is not addressed in either the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), the CCPR, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), or the UN Charter.

It was not Arab Palestinian territory. The Arab Palestinians did not have any sovereignty at all (not for a thousand years). All this talk about sovereignty overshadows the fact that the Arab Palestinians had no sovereignty either.

The UN states that the Palestinians, in Palestine, have the right to self-determination, the right to independence and sovereignty and the right to territorial integrity.

You claim that the Palestinians did not have any rights when the country was founded. The UN says different.

At what point in time did the Palestinians obtain these rights? What triggered that event?

(COMMENT)

NONE of the Conventions in the framework of International Law comes before 1945.

In the early part of the 20th Century, The Treaty of Versailles, which brought an end to the First World War, was probably the pivotal point (although some historians might point to the Treaty of Westphalia) for these political considerations. They were tacked onto the front-end of the treaty. They were called the 14 Points of Peace (by American President Woodrow Wilson). They were not incorporated into the Treaty of Lausanne.

But let's be clear, the Jewish Immigrant had the exact same rights to self-determination, territorial integrity, and a nation with political sovereignty as anyone else.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, you are correct. Theoretically, ALL people, Everywhere, have these rights. They are not at all unique to the Arab Palestinian (including the Jewish Immigrants).

BLUF: If we are to respect the rights of the combative Arab Palestinian, then we must also insist that all parties equally respect the rights of the Cooperative Jewish Immigrant. The fact that the Jewish movement acted first and in concert with the Allied Powers is not a justification for the hostilities perpetrated by the Arab Palestinian.

◈ The right to self determination [Part I, Article 1(1), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)]
◈ The right to territorial integrity and political independence [Chapter I, Article 2(4), UN Charter]
◈ The right to sovereign equality applies to international status of a sovereign, independent State (not people). [Articles 2(1), 78, UN Charter]​

Individual (personal) Sovereignty is not addressed in either the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), the CCPR, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), or the UN Charter.

It was not Arab Palestinian territory. The Arab Palestinians did not have any sovereignty at all (not for a thousand years). All this talk about sovereignty overshadows the fact that the Arab Palestinians had no sovereignty either.

The UN states that the Palestinians, in Palestine, have the right to self-determination, the right to independence and sovereignty and the right to territorial integrity.

You claim that the Palestinians did not have any rights when the country was founded. The UN says different.

At what point in time did the Palestinians obtain these rights? What triggered that event?

(COMMENT)

NONE of the Conventions in the framework of International Law comes before 1945.

In the early part of the 20th Century, The Treaty of Versailles, which brought an end to the First World War, was probably the pivotal point (although some historians might point to the Treaty of Westphalia) for these political considerations. They were tacked onto the front-end of the treaty. They were called the 14 Points of Peace (by American President Woodrow Wilson). They were not incorporated into the Treaty of Lausanne.

But let's be clear, the Jewish Immigrant had the exact same rights to self-determination, territorial integrity, and a nation with political sovereignty as anyone else.


Most Respectfully,
R

So then, why do foreign immigrants have more rights than the natives.

And besides, they were not immigrants.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, you are correct. Theoretically, ALL people, Everywhere, have these rights. They are not at all unique to the Arab Palestinian (including the Jewish Immigrants).

BLUF: If we are to respect the rights of the combative Arab Palestinian, then we must also insist that all parties equally respect the rights of the Cooperative Jewish Immigrant. The fact that the Jewish movement acted first and in concert with the Allied Powers is not a justification for the hostilities perpetrated by the Arab Palestinian.

◈ The right to self determination [Part I, Article 1(1), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)]
◈ The right to territorial integrity and political independence [Chapter I, Article 2(4), UN Charter]
◈ The right to sovereign equality applies to international status of a sovereign, independent State (not people). [Articles 2(1), 78, UN Charter]​

Individual (personal) Sovereignty is not addressed in either the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), the CCPR, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), or the UN Charter.

It was not Arab Palestinian territory. The Arab Palestinians did not have any sovereignty at all (not for a thousand years). All this talk about sovereignty overshadows the fact that the Arab Palestinians had no sovereignty either.

The UN states that the Palestinians, in Palestine, have the right to self-determination, the right to independence and sovereignty and the right to territorial integrity.

You claim that the Palestinians did not have any rights when the country was founded. The UN says different.

At what point in time did the Palestinians obtain these rights? What triggered that event?

(COMMENT)

NONE of the Conventions in the framework of International Law comes before 1945.

In the early part of the 20th Century, The Treaty of Versailles, which brought an end to the First World War, was probably the pivotal point (although some historians might point to the Treaty of Westphalia) for these political considerations. They were tacked onto the front-end of the treaty. They were called the 14 Points of Peace (by American President Woodrow Wilson). They were not incorporated into the Treaty of Lausanne.

But let's be clear, the Jewish Immigrant had the exact same rights to self-determination, territorial integrity, and a nation with political sovereignty as anyone else.


Most Respectfully,
R

At what point in time did the Palestinians obtain these rights? What triggered that event?

I have asked this question many times. That is when you start dancing.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, you are correct. Theoretically, ALL people, Everywhere, have these rights. They are not at all unique to the Arab Palestinian (including the Jewish Immigrants).

BLUF: If we are to respect the rights of the combative Arab Palestinian, then we must also insist that all parties equally respect the rights of the Cooperative Jewish Immigrant. The fact that the Jewish movement acted first and in concert with the Allied Powers is not a justification for the hostilities perpetrated by the Arab Palestinian.

◈ The right to self determination [Part I, Article 1(1), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)]
◈ The right to territorial integrity and political independence [Chapter I, Article 2(4), UN Charter]
◈ The right to sovereign equality applies to international status of a sovereign, independent State (not people). [Articles 2(1), 78, UN Charter]​

Individual (personal) Sovereignty is not addressed in either the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), the CCPR, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), or the UN Charter.

It was not Arab Palestinian territory. The Arab Palestinians did not have any sovereignty at all (not for a thousand years). All this talk about sovereignty overshadows the fact that the Arab Palestinians had no sovereignty either.

The UN states that the Palestinians, in Palestine, have the right to self-determination, the right to independence and sovereignty and the right to territorial integrity.

You claim that the Palestinians did not have any rights when the country was founded. The UN says different.

At what point in time did the Palestinians obtain these rights? What triggered that event?

(COMMENT)

NONE of the Conventions in the framework of International Law comes before 1945.

In the early part of the 20th Century, The Treaty of Versailles, which brought an end to the First World War, was probably the pivotal point (although some historians might point to the Treaty of Westphalia) for these political considerations. They were tacked onto the front-end of the treaty. They were called the 14 Points of Peace (by American President Woodrow Wilson). They were not incorporated into the Treaty of Lausanne.

But let's be clear, the Jewish Immigrant had the exact same rights to self-determination, territorial integrity, and a nation with political sovereignty as anyone else.


Most Respectfully,
R

So then, why do foreign immigrants have more rights than the natives.

And besides, they were not immigrants.

Of course, they were immigrants. When my grandparents and uncles were forced out of Poland and were denied visas to America, they moved to Israel. If they weren't immigrants, what exactly were they? Alligators?

 

[rylah]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, you are correct. Theoretically, ALL people, Everywhere, have these rights. They are not at all unique to the Arab Palestinian (including the Jewish Immigrants).

BLUF: If we are to respect the rights of the combative Arab Palestinian, then we must also insist that all parties equally respect the rights of the Cooperative Jewish Immigrant. The fact that the Jewish movement acted first and in concert with the Allied Powers is not a justification for the hostilities perpetrated by the Arab Palestinian.

◈ The right to self determination [Part I, Article 1(1), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)]
◈ The right to territorial integrity and political independence [Chapter I, Article 2(4), UN Charter]
◈ The right to sovereign equality applies to international status of a sovereign, independent State (not people). [Articles 2(1), 78, UN Charter]​

Individual (personal) Sovereignty is not addressed in either the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), the CCPR, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), or the UN Charter.

It was not Arab Palestinian territory. The Arab Palestinians did not have any sovereignty at all (not for a thousand years). All this talk about sovereignty overshadows the fact that the Arab Palestinians had no sovereignty either.

The UN states that the Palestinians, in Palestine, have the right to self-determination, the right to independence and sovereignty and the right to territorial integrity.

You claim that the Palestinians did not have any rights when the country was founded. The UN says different.

At what point in time did the Palestinians obtain these rights? What triggered that event?

(COMMENT)

NONE of the Conventions in the framework of International Law comes before 1945.

In the early part of the 20th Century, The Treaty of Versailles, which brought an end to the First World War, was probably the pivotal point (although some historians might point to the Treaty of Westphalia) for these political considerations. They were tacked onto the front-end of the treaty. They were called the 14 Points of Peace (by American President Woodrow Wilson). They were not incorporated into the Treaty of Lausanne.

But let's be clear, the Jewish Immigrant had the exact same rights to self-determination, territorial integrity, and a nation with political sovereignty as anyone else.


Most Respectfully,
R

So then, why do foreign immigrants have more rights than the natives.

And besides, they were not immigrants.

The Jewish immigrants weren't foreign to the natives.

Grandfather of my Rabbi in the yeshivah gave away his plots of land for them to build new villages. And his family lived here long before the droves of Arabs started pouring in, from the same countries where they expelled Jews.

 

[Shusha]

At what point in time did the Palestinians obtain these rights? What triggered that event?

Well, that IS an interesting question. What is your answer?

 

[rylah]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, you are correct. Theoretically, ALL people, Everywhere, have these rights. They are not at all unique to the Arab Palestinian (including the Jewish Immigrants).

BLUF: If we are to respect the rights of the combative Arab Palestinian, then we must also insist that all parties equally respect the rights of the Cooperative Jewish Immigrant. The fact that the Jewish movement acted first and in concert with the Allied Powers is not a justification for the hostilities perpetrated by the Arab Palestinian.

◈ The right to self determination [Part I, Article 1(1), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR)]
◈ The right to territorial integrity and political independence [Chapter I, Article 2(4), UN Charter]
◈ The right to sovereign equality applies to international status of a sovereign, independent State (not people). [Articles 2(1), 78, UN Charter]​

Individual (personal) Sovereignty is not addressed in either the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), the CCPR, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), or the UN Charter.

It was not Arab Palestinian territory. The Arab Palestinians did not have any sovereignty at all (not for a thousand years). All this talk about sovereignty overshadows the fact that the Arab Palestinians had no sovereignty either.

The UN states that the Palestinians, in Palestine, have the right to self-determination, the right to independence and sovereignty and the right to territorial integrity.

You claim that the Palestinians did not have any rights when the country was founded. The UN says different.

At what point in time did the Palestinians obtain these rights? What triggered that event?

(COMMENT)

NONE of the Conventions in the framework of International Law comes before 1945.

In the early part of the 20th Century, The Treaty of Versailles, which brought an end to the First World War, was probably the pivotal point (although some historians might point to the Treaty of Westphalia) for these political considerations. They were tacked onto the front-end of the treaty. They were called the 14 Points of Peace (by American President Woodrow Wilson). They were not incorporated into the Treaty of Lausanne.

But let's be clear, the Jewish Immigrant had the exact same rights to self-determination, territorial integrity, and a nation with political sovereignty as anyone else.


Most Respectfully,
R

At what point in time did the Palestinians obtain these rights? What triggered that event?

I have asked this question many times. That is when you start dancing.

At the point in history when Palestine was defined a separate political entity -
allotted for the sovereignty of the Jewish nation.

When did the Jihadi princess of Qatar's royal tribe become Palestinian?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestine Today
⁜→ et al,

Well, I refer to the Jewish movement into the Mandated Territory as "immigrants" because in the early decades of the 20th Century, that is how the Allied Powers (consistently) referred to them:

XVIII.--The High Commissioner shall not unless he shall have previously obtained instructions thereupon from one of Our Principal Secretaries of State, or unless the Ordinance shall contain a clause suspending its operation until the signification of Our pleasure thereupon, assent to any Ordinance of any of the following classes, namely:--

(1) Any Ordinance relating to immigration;
​

XXVII.--The High Commissioner shall be guided by the statement of British policy in Palestine presented to Parliament by Our Command on the 1st day of July 1922. While ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, he shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

Immigration.84.--
(i) The High Commissioner shall confer upon all matters relating to the regulation of immigration with a Committee consisting of not less than one-half of the unofficial members of the Legislative Council, and provision shall be made by Order in Council for investing the said Committee with all such powers and authorities and otherwise for the constitution and conduct of the business of the said Committee, as may be necessary to carry this Article into effect.

(ii) In the event of any difference of opinion between the High Commissioner and the said Committee upon any such matter as aforesaid, the High Commissioner shall make a full report on the subject to a Secretary of State, whose decision thereon shall be final.

These Jewish Immigrants (possibly alligators) are not to be confused with the pre-war Jew Residents that held Government Recognition in one of the Ottoman Political Subdivisions.

NOTE: That the non-cooperating Arab Palestinians declined to participate as unofficial members of the Legislative Council on Immigration Matters. However, the Jewish Agency readily accepted the invitation.


Most Respectfully,
R