PLO leadership votes to suspend security cooperation with Israel

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Covenant is a general philosophy --- a broad brush stroke in principle. But in the real world, one shoe does not fit all thing --- just as one law does not cover ever eventuality.

Your post is a lie. The covenant says:

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.

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

Everything said is to benefit the people.​

(COMMENT)

The Covenant is the general philosophy [(Members of the League undertake to secure just treatment of the native inhabitants of territories under their control - Article 23b) --- (Article 22 of the Covenant contains nine paragraphs in which are set out in general terms the fundamental principles of the mandates system, together with the methods and safeguards designed to ensure their application.)]; but the Mandates are crafted individually --- tailored to each specific area to cover specific goals and objectives. Indeed, the Mandate clearly opens with the two critical statements by the Allied Powers with the general philosophy AND the specific goal:

THE GENERAL

• 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;

AND SPECIFIC

• Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,

The Allied Powers (wherein Turkey agreed to accept any dispositions which may be taken in connection with the territories outside her frontiers), made a determination that there should be applied these specific principles, that include the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilization, in order to achieve these two effects; the general and specific. This sets-up a unique “fiduciary relationship” between the Allied Powers and the Mandatory (on one side) --- and (on the other side) the two peoples identified as the "native inhabitant" and the "all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home" (Arabs and Jews respectively).

There is something that we tend to overlook when we discuss the various authoritative material (the San Remo Agreement, the Covenant, the Order in Council, the Mandate, the treaties, the Charter and the numerous resolutions) we cite. They are all products of the very same international community body at different moments along their evolutionary timeline. The League of Nations (LoN) is essentially the same international organization with the principal mission to maintain world peace --- as the --- United Nations (UN) is an international organization, to promote international peace, security, and cooperation; the principle differences are in the construct and framework associated with the LoN in the transition to the UN.

The Covenant, as well as the Charter, were general philosophies that apply to everyone (all peoples) --- across the board. Nothing is unique of specific to the region of Palestine (within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers) --- nor was there a specific or special commitment made to the inhabitance of the regional area other than to "just treatment."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

LINK ? ? ? ?

Oh geese, have you never read article 22 of the LoN Covenant?

Yes and it does not say what you are claiming, it says that the people will be placed under the tutelage of a sovereign nation on behalf of the LEGAL LAND OWNERS the LoN.


So how about this link that shows the LoN did not acquire ownership of the land after the Ottomans were defeated.

Your post is a lie. The covenant says:

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.

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

Everything said is to benefit the people.​

So where does it say the people other than the Jews, and then where does it say the land was not owned by the LoN ?

Remember the Jews had a prior claim to the Land from the Lon Mandate that said they would be given Palestine as promised.

Where does it say that the land of Palestine would be given to the Jews?

Here


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; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and

Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and

Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and

Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;

confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:


ART. 4.
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.

The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

ART. 6.
The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

ART. 7.
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

 

[Daniyel]

Abbas is yet to make the final decision but it looks likely...

A shrewd political move by the PLO in the wake of Nut&yahoo in congress?

Pressure on Nut&yahoo in the upcoming elections?

Suicide for the PLO?

Strangulation of Hamas from within?

PLO leadership votes to suspend security cooperation with Israel World news The Guardian

I Could sense the enthusiasm in your words
http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=23995

Down with Team Palestine

 

[P F Tinmore]

Oh geese, have you never read article 22 of the LoN Covenant?

Yes and it does not say what you are claiming, it says that the people will be placed under the tutelage of a sovereign nation on behalf of the LEGAL LAND OWNERS the LoN.


So how about this link that shows the LoN did not acquire ownership of the land after the Ottomans were defeated.

Your post is a lie. The covenant says:

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.

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

Everything said is to benefit the people.​

So where does it say the people other than the Jews, and then where does it say the land was not owned by the LoN ?

Remember the Jews had a prior claim to the Land from the Lon Mandate that said they would be given Palestine as promised.

Where does it say that the land of Palestine would be given to the Jews?

Here


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; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and

Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and

Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and

Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;

confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:


ART. 4.
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.

The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

ART. 6.
The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

ART. 7.
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

OK, it doesn't say that they are giving Palestine to the Jews.

 

[Phoenall]

Yes and it does not say what you are claiming, it says that the people will be placed under the tutelage of a sovereign nation on behalf of the LEGAL LAND OWNERS the LoN.


So how about this link that shows the LoN did not acquire ownership of the land after the Ottomans were defeated.

Your post is a lie. The covenant says:

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.

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

Everything said is to benefit the people.​

So where does it say the people other than the Jews, and then where does it say the land was not owned by the LoN ?

Remember the Jews had a prior claim to the Land from the Lon Mandate that said they would be given Palestine as promised.

Where does it say that the land of Palestine would be given to the Jews?

Here


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; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and

Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and

Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and

Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;

confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:


ART. 4.
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.

The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

ART. 6.
The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

ART. 7.
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

OK, it doesn't say that they are giving Palestine to the Jews.

Yes it does if you read it all, and read the Covenant that also says the same thing. As well as the British mandate that says the same thing as well. So 3 pieces of information that say the Jews were to get all of Palestine, and then there are the LoN treaties that also say that Palestine was to go to the Jews.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Your post is a lie. The covenant says:

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.

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

Everything said is to benefit the people.​

So where does it say the people other than the Jews, and then where does it say the land was not owned by the LoN ?

Remember the Jews had a prior claim to the Land from the Lon Mandate that said they would be given Palestine as promised.

Where does it say that the land of Palestine would be given to the Jews?

Here


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; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and

Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and

Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and

Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;

confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:


ART. 4.
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.

The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

ART. 6.
The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

ART. 7.
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

OK, it doesn't say that they are giving Palestine to the Jews.

Yes it does if you read it all, and read the Covenant that also says the same thing. As well as the British mandate that says the same thing as well. So 3 pieces of information that say the Jews were to get all of Palestine, and then there are the LoN treaties that also say that Palestine was to go to the Jews.

No it did not give Palestine to the Jews. Britain confirmed the purpose of the Mandate in its 1939 White Paper.

"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."

But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1939.asp​

 

[Phoenall]

So where does it say the people other than the Jews, and then where does it say the land was not owned by the LoN ?

Remember the Jews had a prior claim to the Land from the Lon Mandate that said they would be given Palestine as promised.

Where does it say that the land of Palestine would be given to the Jews?

Here


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; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and

Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and

Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and

Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;

confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:


ART. 4.
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.

The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

ART. 6.
The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

ART. 7.
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

OK, it doesn't say that they are giving Palestine to the Jews.

Yes it does if you read it all, and read the Covenant that also says the same thing. As well as the British mandate that says the same thing as well. So 3 pieces of information that say the Jews were to get all of Palestine, and then there are the LoN treaties that also say that Palestine was to go to the Jews.

No it did not give Palestine to the Jews. Britain confirmed the purpose of the Mandate in its 1939 White Paper.

"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."

But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1939.asp​

Read it again and you will see that the Jews were to be given Palestine as their RESURECTED NATIONAL HOME and to accept those indigenous who were prepared to live in peace as full citizens. This they did and fulfilled the mandate, it was the arab muslims that decided war and violence were the way forward and started crying when things went wrong for them.
By the way the British government had no say in what happened to Palestine, which is why the LoN overruled them and told them to act according to the mandate. That is why the British threw the towel in and said they could no longer act as mandatory power in Palestine. And the Jews still received their Jewish state in spite of the anti semitic British stance.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Where does it say that the land of Palestine would be given to the Jews?

Here


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; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and

Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and

Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and

Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;

confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:


ART. 4.
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.

The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

ART. 6.
The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

ART. 7.
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

OK, it doesn't say that they are giving Palestine to the Jews.

Yes it does if you read it all, and read the Covenant that also says the same thing. As well as the British mandate that says the same thing as well. So 3 pieces of information that say the Jews were to get all of Palestine, and then there are the LoN treaties that also say that Palestine was to go to the Jews.

No it did not give Palestine to the Jews. Britain confirmed the purpose of the Mandate in its 1939 White Paper.

"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."

But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1939.asp​

Read it again and you will see that the Jews were to be given Palestine as their RESURECTED NATIONAL HOME and to accept those indigenous who were prepared to live in peace as full citizens. This they did and fulfilled the mandate, it was the arab muslims that decided war and violence were the way forward and started crying when things went wrong for them.
By the way the British government had no say in what happened to Palestine, which is why the LoN overruled them and told them to act according to the mandate. That is why the British threw the towel in and said they could no longer act as mandatory power in Palestine. And the Jews still received their Jewish state in spite of the anti semitic British stance.

Indeed, Britain could not get their pig to fly so they cut and run without creating an independent state or the Jewish homeland.

Britain did, however, set the stage for Zionist gangs to run through Palestine driving civilians out of their homes. Then the Zionists created their own government in Palestine against the will of the people.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al:

Again, I think you are not telling the whole story here.

Yes it does if you read it all, and read the Covenant that also says the same thing. As well as the British mandate that says the same thing as well. So 3 pieces of information that say the Jews were to get all of Palestine, and then there are the LoN treaties that also say that Palestine was to go to the Jews.
No it did not give Palestine to the Jews. Britain confirmed the purpose of the Mandate in its 1939 White Paper.

"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."

But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1939.asp​

(COMMENT)

In 1939, the UK (as Mandatory) was subordinate to the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations ("The Geneva-based commission was established in 1919 under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations to supervise the administration under the mandate system of fifteen mandated territories including four in the Middle East—France's Lebanon and Syria and Britain's Palestine and Iraq." Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa ). The Policy being set here was the voice of only one member; albeit an important Allied Power. As the 1939 White Paper stated:

In the light of these considerations His Majesty's Government make the following declaration of their intentions regarding the future government of Palestine:

The objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. The proposal for the establishment of the independent State would involve consultation with the Council of the League of Nations with a view to the termination of the Mandate.

The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded.

This is very important: (The rest of the story!)

110. The Mandatory’s new statement of policy was examined by the Permanent Mandates Commission at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939. the commission reported that:

• • 
    “the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”

They went on to consider whether the Mandate was open to a new interpretation with which the White Paper would not be at variance. Four of the seven members

• • 
    “did not feel able to state that the policy of the White Paper was in conformity with the Mandate, any contrary conclusion appearing to them to be ruled out by the very terms of the Mandate and by the fundamental intentions of its authors.”

The other three members “were unable to share this opinion; they consider that existing circumstances would justify the policy of the White Paper, provided the Council did not oppose it.”

111. It was the intention of His Majesty’s government to seek the approval of the League Council for their new policy. This, however, they were prevented from doing by the outbreak of war in September.

Source: AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947

While there are excerpts in the White Paper of 1939, that sound very favorable to the cause P F Tinmore wants to champion, it is a double edged sword for the pro-Palestinian. The Permanent Mandates Commission ultimately rejected the Mandatory's interpretation between the policy outlined in the White Paper and the terms of the Palestine mandate.

It was for that reason that M. Rappard found it difficult to endorse the views put forward by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The latter's interpretation was contrary to his own reading of the mandate: it was contrary to all the previous interpretations of the mandatory Power, and it was contrary to the interpretations of the surviving members of the group responsible for the drafting of the Balfour Declaration: it was contrary to the views of the Jews, and it was also contrary to the views of the Arabs, because the Arabs had from the start objected to the Balfour Declaration and to the mandate itself and, if the mandate and the Balfour Declaration had been susceptible of an interpretation which would have allowed a limitation in deference to the views of the Arabs, M. Rappard did not think they would have objected to the policy.

Having said that, but in the interest of balance, there was a bit of conflict between the position taken by the Permanent Mandates Commission and that of the Anglo-American community of Inquiry. The twelve members of the Committee, signed an unanimous Report* at Lausanne on 20th April 1945.

The committee recommended that the constitutional future of Palestine should be based on three principles:-

I. That Jew shall not dominate Arab and Arab shall not dominate Jew in Palestine
II. That Palestine shall be neither a Jewish state nor an Arab state.
III. That the form of government ultimately to be established, shall, under international guarantees, fully protect and preserve the interests in the Holy land of Christendom and of the Moslem and Jewish Faiths.
​

The committee explicitly rejected partition and concluded that “now and for some time to come any attempt to establish either an independent Palestinian state or independent Palestinian States would result in civil strife such as might threaten the peace of the world”. They accordingly recommended that Palestine should continue to be administered under the Mandate pending the execution of a trusteeship agreement.​

There was plenty of written and spoken communication and debate in "the language of political discourse." In the end, both the Mandatory and the Permanent Mandates Commission recognized that there was irreconcilable differences between the principles of the Jewish and Arab.

• For the Jews the essential point of principle is the creation of sovereign Jewish State.
• For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine.

For many pro-Palestinians, these are the essential differences that remain today.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al:

Again, I think you are not telling the whole story here.

Yes it does if you read it all, and read the Covenant that also says the same thing. As well as the British mandate that says the same thing as well. So 3 pieces of information that say the Jews were to get all of Palestine, and then there are the LoN treaties that also say that Palestine was to go to the Jews.
No it did not give Palestine to the Jews. Britain confirmed the purpose of the Mandate in its 1939 White Paper.

"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."

But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1939.asp​

(COMMENT)

In 1939, the UK (as Mandatory) was subordinate to the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations ("The Geneva-based commission was established in 1919 under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations to supervise the administration under the mandate system of fifteen mandated territories including four in the Middle East—France's Lebanon and Syria and Britain's Palestine and Iraq." Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa ). The Policy being set here was the voice of only one member; albeit an important Allied Power. As the 1939 White Paper stated:

In the light of these considerations His Majesty's Government make the following declaration of their intentions regarding the future government of Palestine:

The objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. The proposal for the establishment of the independent State would involve consultation with the Council of the League of Nations with a view to the termination of the Mandate.

The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded.

This is very important: (The rest of the story!)

110. The Mandatory’s new statement of policy was examined by the Permanent Mandates Commission at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939. the commission reported that:

• • 
    “the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”

They went on to consider whether the Mandate was open to a new interpretation with which the White Paper would not be at variance. Four of the seven members

• • 
    “did not feel able to state that the policy of the White Paper was in conformity with the Mandate, any contrary conclusion appearing to them to be ruled out by the very terms of the Mandate and by the fundamental intentions of its authors.”

The other three members “were unable to share this opinion; they consider that existing circumstances would justify the policy of the White Paper, provided the Council did not oppose it.”

111. It was the intention of His Majesty’s government to seek the approval of the League Council for their new policy. This, however, they were prevented from doing by the outbreak of war in September.

Source: AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947

While there are excerpts in the White Paper of 1939, that sound very favorable to the cause P F Tinmore wants to champion, it is a double edged sword for the pro-Palestinian. The Permanent Mandates Commission ultimately rejected the Mandatory's interpretation between the policy outlined in the White Paper and the terms of the Palestine mandate.

It was for that reason that M. Rappard found it difficult to endorse the views put forward by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The latter's interpretation was contrary to his own reading of the mandate: it was contrary to all the previous interpretations of the mandatory Power, and it was contrary to the interpretations of the surviving members of the group responsible for the drafting of the Balfour Declaration: it was contrary to the views of the Jews, and it was also contrary to the views of the Arabs, because the Arabs had from the start objected to the Balfour Declaration and to the mandate itself and, if the mandate and the Balfour Declaration had been susceptible of an interpretation which would have allowed a limitation in deference to the views of the Arabs, M. Rappard did not think they would have objected to the policy.

Having said that, but in the interest of balance, there was a bit of conflict between the position taken by the Permanent Mandates Commission and that of the Anglo-American community of Inquiry. The twelve members of the Committee, signed an unanimous Report* at Lausanne on 20th April 1945.

The committee recommended that the constitutional future of Palestine should be based on three principles:-

I. That Jew shall not dominate Arab and Arab shall not dominate Jew in Palestine
II. That Palestine shall be neither a Jewish state nor an Arab state.
III. That the form of government ultimately to be established, shall, under international guarantees, fully protect and preserve the interests in the Holy land of Christendom and of the Moslem and Jewish Faiths.
​

The committee explicitly rejected partition and concluded that “now and for some time to come any attempt to establish either an independent Palestinian state or independent Palestinian States would result in civil strife such as might threaten the peace of the world”. They accordingly recommended that Palestine should continue to be administered under the Mandate pending the execution of a trusteeship agreement.​

There was plenty of written and spoken communication and debate in "the language of political discourse." In the end, both the Mandatory and the Permanent Mandates Commission recognized that there was irreconcilable differences between the principles of the Jewish and Arab.

• For the Jews the essential point of principle is the creation of sovereign Jewish State.
• For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine.

For many pro-Palestinians, these are the essential differences that remain today.

Most Respectfully,
R

What part of the White Paper did they object to?

Was this in regard or disregard to the rights of the people?

 

[P F Tinmore]

• For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine.

For many pro-Palestinians, these are the essential differences that remain today.

Indeed, and for valid reasons.

 

[ChrisL]

This isn't surprising since the palestinian authorities don't really want to work anything out. They just want to wallow in their hatred.

 

[Phoenall]

Here


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; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and

Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and

Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and

Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;

confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:


ART. 4.
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.

The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

ART. 6.
The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

ART. 7.
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.

OK, it doesn't say that they are giving Palestine to the Jews.

Yes it does if you read it all, and read the Covenant that also says the same thing. As well as the British mandate that says the same thing as well. So 3 pieces of information that say the Jews were to get all of Palestine, and then there are the LoN treaties that also say that Palestine was to go to the Jews.

No it did not give Palestine to the Jews. Britain confirmed the purpose of the Mandate in its 1939 White Paper.

"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."

But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1939.asp​

Read it again and you will see that the Jews were to be given Palestine as their RESURECTED NATIONAL HOME and to accept those indigenous who were prepared to live in peace as full citizens. This they did and fulfilled the mandate, it was the arab muslims that decided war and violence were the way forward and started crying when things went wrong for them.
By the way the British government had no say in what happened to Palestine, which is why the LoN overruled them and told them to act according to the mandate. That is why the British threw the towel in and said they could no longer act as mandatory power in Palestine. And the Jews still received their Jewish state in spite of the anti semitic British stance.

Indeed, Britain could not get their pig to fly so they cut and run without creating an independent state or the Jewish homeland.

Britain did, however, set the stage for Zionist gangs to run through Palestine driving civilians out of their homes. Then the Zionists created their own government in Palestine against the will of the people.

You forget that the British did not leave until may15 1948, and while they were there they enabled gangs of illegal muslim immigrants to murder innocent unarmed Jewish women and children. That is what led to Jewish defence fighters forming groups to protect the Jews. The Jews did what the mandate dictated and showed a willingness to create a nation and showed the ability to run it in accordance with the UN charter. The state of Israel was never against the will of the people, only the arab muslims who wanted everything but did not want the hard work that went with it.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al:

Again, I think you are not telling the whole story here.

Yes it does if you read it all, and read the Covenant that also says the same thing. As well as the British mandate that says the same thing as well. So 3 pieces of information that say the Jews were to get all of Palestine, and then there are the LoN treaties that also say that Palestine was to go to the Jews.
No it did not give Palestine to the Jews. Britain confirmed the purpose of the Mandate in its 1939 White Paper.

"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."

But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1939.asp​

(COMMENT)

In 1939, the UK (as Mandatory) was subordinate to the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations ("The Geneva-based commission was established in 1919 under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations to supervise the administration under the mandate system of fifteen mandated territories including four in the Middle East—France's Lebanon and Syria and Britain's Palestine and Iraq." Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa ). The Policy being set here was the voice of only one member; albeit an important Allied Power. As the 1939 White Paper stated:

In the light of these considerations His Majesty's Government make the following declaration of their intentions regarding the future government of Palestine:

The objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. The proposal for the establishment of the independent State would involve consultation with the Council of the League of Nations with a view to the termination of the Mandate.

The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded.

This is very important: (The rest of the story!)

110. The Mandatory’s new statement of policy was examined by the Permanent Mandates Commission at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939. the commission reported that:

• • 
    “the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”

They went on to consider whether the Mandate was open to a new interpretation with which the White Paper would not be at variance. Four of the seven members

• • 
    “did not feel able to state that the policy of the White Paper was in conformity with the Mandate, any contrary conclusion appearing to them to be ruled out by the very terms of the Mandate and by the fundamental intentions of its authors.”

The other three members “were unable to share this opinion; they consider that existing circumstances would justify the policy of the White Paper, provided the Council did not oppose it.”

111. It was the intention of His Majesty’s government to seek the approval of the League Council for their new policy. This, however, they were prevented from doing by the outbreak of war in September.

Source: AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947

While there are excerpts in the White Paper of 1939, that sound very favorable to the cause P F Tinmore wants to champion, it is a double edged sword for the pro-Palestinian. The Permanent Mandates Commission ultimately rejected the Mandatory's interpretation between the policy outlined in the White Paper and the terms of the Palestine mandate.

It was for that reason that M. Rappard found it difficult to endorse the views put forward by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The latter's interpretation was contrary to his own reading of the mandate: it was contrary to all the previous interpretations of the mandatory Power, and it was contrary to the interpretations of the surviving members of the group responsible for the drafting of the Balfour Declaration: it was contrary to the views of the Jews, and it was also contrary to the views of the Arabs, because the Arabs had from the start objected to the Balfour Declaration and to the mandate itself and, if the mandate and the Balfour Declaration had been susceptible of an interpretation which would have allowed a limitation in deference to the views of the Arabs, M. Rappard did not think they would have objected to the policy.

Having said that, but in the interest of balance, there was a bit of conflict between the position taken by the Permanent Mandates Commission and that of the Anglo-American community of Inquiry. The twelve members of the Committee, signed an unanimous Report* at Lausanne on 20th April 1945.

The committee recommended that the constitutional future of Palestine should be based on three principles:-

I. That Jew shall not dominate Arab and Arab shall not dominate Jew in Palestine
II. That Palestine shall be neither a Jewish state nor an Arab state.
III. That the form of government ultimately to be established, shall, under international guarantees, fully protect and preserve the interests in the Holy land of Christendom and of the Moslem and Jewish Faiths.
​

The committee explicitly rejected partition and concluded that “now and for some time to come any attempt to establish either an independent Palestinian state or independent Palestinian States would result in civil strife such as might threaten the peace of the world”. They accordingly recommended that Palestine should continue to be administered under the Mandate pending the execution of a trusteeship agreement.​

There was plenty of written and spoken communication and debate in "the language of political discourse." In the end, both the Mandatory and the Permanent Mandates Commission recognized that there was irreconcilable differences between the principles of the Jewish and Arab.

• For the Jews the essential point of principle is the creation of sovereign Jewish State.
• For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine.

For many pro-Palestinians, these are the essential differences that remain today.

Most Respectfully,
R

What part of the White Paper did they object to?

Was this in regard or disregard to the rights of the people?

That was spelt out for you, or do you have problems reading English

Which rights of which people, are you denying that the Jews had the same rights as the muslims to create a nation on land already destined to become the RESURECTED NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS. Because that is how most decent people read your posts on this board regarding the creation of Israel.

 

[Phoenall]

• For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine.

For many pro-Palestinians, these are the essential differences that remain today.

Indeed, and for valid reasons.

What valid reasons would they be then, bringing to mind the mass murders of the Jews in arab muslims nations over the last 1400 years

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al:

Again, I think you are not telling the whole story here.

Yes it does if you read it all, and read the Covenant that also says the same thing. As well as the British mandate that says the same thing as well. So 3 pieces of information that say the Jews were to get all of Palestine, and then there are the LoN treaties that also say that Palestine was to go to the Jews.
No it did not give Palestine to the Jews. Britain confirmed the purpose of the Mandate in its 1939 White Paper.

"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."

But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1939.asp​

(COMMENT)

In 1939, the UK (as Mandatory) was subordinate to the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations ("The Geneva-based commission was established in 1919 under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations to supervise the administration under the mandate system of fifteen mandated territories including four in the Middle East—France's Lebanon and Syria and Britain's Palestine and Iraq." Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa ). The Policy being set here was the voice of only one member; albeit an important Allied Power. As the 1939 White Paper stated:

In the light of these considerations His Majesty's Government make the following declaration of their intentions regarding the future government of Palestine:

The objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. The proposal for the establishment of the independent State would involve consultation with the Council of the League of Nations with a view to the termination of the Mandate.

The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded.

This is very important: (The rest of the story!)

110. The Mandatory’s new statement of policy was examined by the Permanent Mandates Commission at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939. the commission reported that:

• • 
    “the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”

They went on to consider whether the Mandate was open to a new interpretation with which the White Paper would not be at variance. Four of the seven members

• • 
    “did not feel able to state that the policy of the White Paper was in conformity with the Mandate, any contrary conclusion appearing to them to be ruled out by the very terms of the Mandate and by the fundamental intentions of its authors.”

The other three members “were unable to share this opinion; they consider that existing circumstances would justify the policy of the White Paper, provided the Council did not oppose it.”

111. It was the intention of His Majesty’s government to seek the approval of the League Council for their new policy. This, however, they were prevented from doing by the outbreak of war in September.

Source: AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947

While there are excerpts in the White Paper of 1939, that sound very favorable to the cause P F Tinmore wants to champion, it is a double edged sword for the pro-Palestinian. The Permanent Mandates Commission ultimately rejected the Mandatory's interpretation between the policy outlined in the White Paper and the terms of the Palestine mandate.

It was for that reason that M. Rappard found it difficult to endorse the views put forward by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The latter's interpretation was contrary to his own reading of the mandate: it was contrary to all the previous interpretations of the mandatory Power, and it was contrary to the interpretations of the surviving members of the group responsible for the drafting of the Balfour Declaration: it was contrary to the views of the Jews, and it was also contrary to the views of the Arabs, because the Arabs had from the start objected to the Balfour Declaration and to the mandate itself and, if the mandate and the Balfour Declaration had been susceptible of an interpretation which would have allowed a limitation in deference to the views of the Arabs, M. Rappard did not think they would have objected to the policy.

Having said that, but in the interest of balance, there was a bit of conflict between the position taken by the Permanent Mandates Commission and that of the Anglo-American community of Inquiry. The twelve members of the Committee, signed an unanimous Report* at Lausanne on 20th April 1945.

The committee recommended that the constitutional future of Palestine should be based on three principles:-

I. That Jew shall not dominate Arab and Arab shall not dominate Jew in Palestine
II. That Palestine shall be neither a Jewish state nor an Arab state.
III. That the form of government ultimately to be established, shall, under international guarantees, fully protect and preserve the interests in the Holy land of Christendom and of the Moslem and Jewish Faiths.
​

The committee explicitly rejected partition and concluded that “now and for some time to come any attempt to establish either an independent Palestinian state or independent Palestinian States would result in civil strife such as might threaten the peace of the world”. They accordingly recommended that Palestine should continue to be administered under the Mandate pending the execution of a trusteeship agreement.​

There was plenty of written and spoken communication and debate in "the language of political discourse." In the end, both the Mandatory and the Permanent Mandates Commission recognized that there was irreconcilable differences between the principles of the Jewish and Arab.

• For the Jews the essential point of principle is the creation of sovereign Jewish State.
• For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine.

For many pro-Palestinians, these are the essential differences that remain today.

Most Respectfully,
R

There was plenty of written and spoken communication and debate in "the language of political discourse." In the end, both the Mandatory and the Permanent Mandates Commission recognized that there was irreconcilable differences between the principles of the Jewish and Arab.​

Indeed, and this major British fuck up started a hundred year (and counting) war.

And Britain still supports the continuation of this war.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al:

Again, I think you are not telling the whole story here.

Yes it does if you read it all, and read the Covenant that also says the same thing. As well as the British mandate that says the same thing as well. So 3 pieces of information that say the Jews were to get all of Palestine, and then there are the LoN treaties that also say that Palestine was to go to the Jews.
No it did not give Palestine to the Jews. Britain confirmed the purpose of the Mandate in its 1939 White Paper.

"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."

But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1939.asp​

(COMMENT)

In 1939, the UK (as Mandatory) was subordinate to the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations ("The Geneva-based commission was established in 1919 under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations to supervise the administration under the mandate system of fifteen mandated territories including four in the Middle East—France's Lebanon and Syria and Britain's Palestine and Iraq." Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa ). The Policy being set here was the voice of only one member; albeit an important Allied Power. As the 1939 White Paper stated:

In the light of these considerations His Majesty's Government make the following declaration of their intentions regarding the future government of Palestine:

The objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. The proposal for the establishment of the independent State would involve consultation with the Council of the League of Nations with a view to the termination of the Mandate.

The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded.

This is very important: (The rest of the story!)

110. The Mandatory’s new statement of policy was examined by the Permanent Mandates Commission at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939. the commission reported that:

• • 
    “the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”

They went on to consider whether the Mandate was open to a new interpretation with which the White Paper would not be at variance. Four of the seven members

• • 
    “did not feel able to state that the policy of the White Paper was in conformity with the Mandate, any contrary conclusion appearing to them to be ruled out by the very terms of the Mandate and by the fundamental intentions of its authors.”

The other three members “were unable to share this opinion; they consider that existing circumstances would justify the policy of the White Paper, provided the Council did not oppose it.”

111. It was the intention of His Majesty’s government to seek the approval of the League Council for their new policy. This, however, they were prevented from doing by the outbreak of war in September.

Source: AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947

While there are excerpts in the White Paper of 1939, that sound very favorable to the cause P F Tinmore wants to champion, it is a double edged sword for the pro-Palestinian. The Permanent Mandates Commission ultimately rejected the Mandatory's interpretation between the policy outlined in the White Paper and the terms of the Palestine mandate.

It was for that reason that M. Rappard found it difficult to endorse the views put forward by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The latter's interpretation was contrary to his own reading of the mandate: it was contrary to all the previous interpretations of the mandatory Power, and it was contrary to the interpretations of the surviving members of the group responsible for the drafting of the Balfour Declaration: it was contrary to the views of the Jews, and it was also contrary to the views of the Arabs, because the Arabs had from the start objected to the Balfour Declaration and to the mandate itself and, if the mandate and the Balfour Declaration had been susceptible of an interpretation which would have allowed a limitation in deference to the views of the Arabs, M. Rappard did not think they would have objected to the policy.

Having said that, but in the interest of balance, there was a bit of conflict between the position taken by the Permanent Mandates Commission and that of the Anglo-American community of Inquiry. The twelve members of the Committee, signed an unanimous Report* at Lausanne on 20th April 1945.

The committee recommended that the constitutional future of Palestine should be based on three principles:-

I. That Jew shall not dominate Arab and Arab shall not dominate Jew in Palestine
II. That Palestine shall be neither a Jewish state nor an Arab state.
III. That the form of government ultimately to be established, shall, under international guarantees, fully protect and preserve the interests in the Holy land of Christendom and of the Moslem and Jewish Faiths.
​

The committee explicitly rejected partition and concluded that “now and for some time to come any attempt to establish either an independent Palestinian state or independent Palestinian States would result in civil strife such as might threaten the peace of the world”. They accordingly recommended that Palestine should continue to be administered under the Mandate pending the execution of a trusteeship agreement.​

There was plenty of written and spoken communication and debate in "the language of political discourse." In the end, both the Mandatory and the Permanent Mandates Commission recognized that there was irreconcilable differences between the principles of the Jewish and Arab.

• For the Jews the essential point of principle is the creation of sovereign Jewish State.
• For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine.

For many pro-Palestinians, these are the essential differences that remain today.

Most Respectfully,
R

There was plenty of written and spoken communication and debate in "the language of political discourse." In the end, both the Mandatory and the Permanent Mandates Commission recognized that there was irreconcilable differences between the principles of the Jewish and Arab.​

Indeed, and this major British fuck up started a hundred year (and counting) war.

And Britain still supports the continuation of this war.

And it had nothing to do with irreconcilable difference between the principles of the Jews and Arabs going back to 632 C.E. did it. A 1300 year war that was started by a mentally deranged false prophet.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al:

Again, I think you are not telling the whole story here.

Yes it does if you read it all, and read the Covenant that also says the same thing. As well as the British mandate that says the same thing as well. So 3 pieces of information that say the Jews were to get all of Palestine, and then there are the LoN treaties that also say that Palestine was to go to the Jews.
No it did not give Palestine to the Jews. Britain confirmed the purpose of the Mandate in its 1939 White Paper.

"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."

But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1939.asp​

(COMMENT)

In 1939, the UK (as Mandatory) was subordinate to the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations ("The Geneva-based commission was established in 1919 under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations to supervise the administration under the mandate system of fifteen mandated territories including four in the Middle East—France's Lebanon and Syria and Britain's Palestine and Iraq." Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa ). The Policy being set here was the voice of only one member; albeit an important Allied Power. As the 1939 White Paper stated:

In the light of these considerations His Majesty's Government make the following declaration of their intentions regarding the future government of Palestine:

The objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. The proposal for the establishment of the independent State would involve consultation with the Council of the League of Nations with a view to the termination of the Mandate.

The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded.

This is very important: (The rest of the story!)

110. The Mandatory’s new statement of policy was examined by the Permanent Mandates Commission at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939. the commission reported that:

• • 
    “the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”

They went on to consider whether the Mandate was open to a new interpretation with which the White Paper would not be at variance. Four of the seven members

• • 
    “did not feel able to state that the policy of the White Paper was in conformity with the Mandate, any contrary conclusion appearing to them to be ruled out by the very terms of the Mandate and by the fundamental intentions of its authors.”

The other three members “were unable to share this opinion; they consider that existing circumstances would justify the policy of the White Paper, provided the Council did not oppose it.”

111. It was the intention of His Majesty’s government to seek the approval of the League Council for their new policy. This, however, they were prevented from doing by the outbreak of war in September.

Source: AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947

While there are excerpts in the White Paper of 1939, that sound very favorable to the cause P F Tinmore wants to champion, it is a double edged sword for the pro-Palestinian. The Permanent Mandates Commission ultimately rejected the Mandatory's interpretation between the policy outlined in the White Paper and the terms of the Palestine mandate.

It was for that reason that M. Rappard found it difficult to endorse the views put forward by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The latter's interpretation was contrary to his own reading of the mandate: it was contrary to all the previous interpretations of the mandatory Power, and it was contrary to the interpretations of the surviving members of the group responsible for the drafting of the Balfour Declaration: it was contrary to the views of the Jews, and it was also contrary to the views of the Arabs, because the Arabs had from the start objected to the Balfour Declaration and to the mandate itself and, if the mandate and the Balfour Declaration had been susceptible of an interpretation which would have allowed a limitation in deference to the views of the Arabs, M. Rappard did not think they would have objected to the policy.

Having said that, but in the interest of balance, there was a bit of conflict between the position taken by the Permanent Mandates Commission and that of the Anglo-American community of Inquiry. The twelve members of the Committee, signed an unanimous Report* at Lausanne on 20th April 1945.

The committee recommended that the constitutional future of Palestine should be based on three principles:-

I. That Jew shall not dominate Arab and Arab shall not dominate Jew in Palestine
II. That Palestine shall be neither a Jewish state nor an Arab state.
III. That the form of government ultimately to be established, shall, under international guarantees, fully protect and preserve the interests in the Holy land of Christendom and of the Moslem and Jewish Faiths.
​

The committee explicitly rejected partition and concluded that “now and for some time to come any attempt to establish either an independent Palestinian state or independent Palestinian States would result in civil strife such as might threaten the peace of the world”. They accordingly recommended that Palestine should continue to be administered under the Mandate pending the execution of a trusteeship agreement.​

There was plenty of written and spoken communication and debate in "the language of political discourse." In the end, both the Mandatory and the Permanent Mandates Commission recognized that there was irreconcilable differences between the principles of the Jewish and Arab.

• For the Jews the essential point of principle is the creation of sovereign Jewish State.
• For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine.

For many pro-Palestinians, these are the essential differences that remain today.

Most Respectfully,
R

There was plenty of written and spoken communication and debate in "the language of political discourse." In the end, both the Mandatory and the Permanent Mandates Commission recognized that there was irreconcilable differences between the principles of the Jewish and Arab.​

Indeed, and this major British fuck up started a hundred year (and counting) war.

And Britain still supports the continuation of this war.

And it had nothing to do with irreconcilable difference between the principles of the Jews and Arabs going back to 632 C.E. did it. A 1300 year war that was started by a mentally deranged false prophet.

The Jews lived in Palestine without war for hundreds of years before Britain entered and started the war.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al:

Again, I think you are not telling the whole story here.

Yes it does if you read it all, and read the Covenant that also says the same thing. As well as the British mandate that says the same thing as well. So 3 pieces of information that say the Jews were to get all of Palestine, and then there are the LoN treaties that also say that Palestine was to go to the Jews.
No it did not give Palestine to the Jews. Britain confirmed the purpose of the Mandate in its 1939 White Paper.

"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."

But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1939.asp​

(COMMENT)

In 1939, the UK (as Mandatory) was subordinate to the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations ("The Geneva-based commission was established in 1919 under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations to supervise the administration under the mandate system of fifteen mandated territories including four in the Middle East—France's Lebanon and Syria and Britain's Palestine and Iraq." Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa ). The Policy being set here was the voice of only one member; albeit an important Allied Power. As the 1939 White Paper stated:

In the light of these considerations His Majesty's Government make the following declaration of their intentions regarding the future government of Palestine:

The objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. The proposal for the establishment of the independent State would involve consultation with the Council of the League of Nations with a view to the termination of the Mandate.

The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded.

This is very important: (The rest of the story!)

110. The Mandatory’s new statement of policy was examined by the Permanent Mandates Commission at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939. the commission reported that:

• • 
    “the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”

They went on to consider whether the Mandate was open to a new interpretation with which the White Paper would not be at variance. Four of the seven members

• • 
    “did not feel able to state that the policy of the White Paper was in conformity with the Mandate, any contrary conclusion appearing to them to be ruled out by the very terms of the Mandate and by the fundamental intentions of its authors.”

The other three members “were unable to share this opinion; they consider that existing circumstances would justify the policy of the White Paper, provided the Council did not oppose it.”

111. It was the intention of His Majesty’s government to seek the approval of the League Council for their new policy. This, however, they were prevented from doing by the outbreak of war in September.

Source: AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947

While there are excerpts in the White Paper of 1939, that sound very favorable to the cause P F Tinmore wants to champion, it is a double edged sword for the pro-Palestinian. The Permanent Mandates Commission ultimately rejected the Mandatory's interpretation between the policy outlined in the White Paper and the terms of the Palestine mandate.

It was for that reason that M. Rappard found it difficult to endorse the views put forward by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The latter's interpretation was contrary to his own reading of the mandate: it was contrary to all the previous interpretations of the mandatory Power, and it was contrary to the interpretations of the surviving members of the group responsible for the drafting of the Balfour Declaration: it was contrary to the views of the Jews, and it was also contrary to the views of the Arabs, because the Arabs had from the start objected to the Balfour Declaration and to the mandate itself and, if the mandate and the Balfour Declaration had been susceptible of an interpretation which would have allowed a limitation in deference to the views of the Arabs, M. Rappard did not think they would have objected to the policy.

Having said that, but in the interest of balance, there was a bit of conflict between the position taken by the Permanent Mandates Commission and that of the Anglo-American community of Inquiry. The twelve members of the Committee, signed an unanimous Report* at Lausanne on 20th April 1945.

The committee recommended that the constitutional future of Palestine should be based on three principles:-

I. That Jew shall not dominate Arab and Arab shall not dominate Jew in Palestine
II. That Palestine shall be neither a Jewish state nor an Arab state.
III. That the form of government ultimately to be established, shall, under international guarantees, fully protect and preserve the interests in the Holy land of Christendom and of the Moslem and Jewish Faiths.
​

The committee explicitly rejected partition and concluded that “now and for some time to come any attempt to establish either an independent Palestinian state or independent Palestinian States would result in civil strife such as might threaten the peace of the world”. They accordingly recommended that Palestine should continue to be administered under the Mandate pending the execution of a trusteeship agreement.​

There was plenty of written and spoken communication and debate in "the language of political discourse." In the end, both the Mandatory and the Permanent Mandates Commission recognized that there was irreconcilable differences between the principles of the Jewish and Arab.

• For the Jews the essential point of principle is the creation of sovereign Jewish State.
• For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine.

For many pro-Palestinians, these are the essential differences that remain today.

Most Respectfully,
R

There was plenty of written and spoken communication and debate in "the language of political discourse." In the end, both the Mandatory and the Permanent Mandates Commission recognized that there was irreconcilable differences between the principles of the Jewish and Arab.​

Indeed, and this major British fuck up started a hundred year (and counting) war.

And Britain still supports the continuation of this war.

And it had nothing to do with irreconcilable difference between the principles of the Jews and Arabs going back to 632 C.E. did it. A 1300 year war that was started by a mentally deranged false prophet.

The Jews lived in Palestine without war for hundreds of years before Britain entered and started the war.

Not according the links I have supplied in recent days, they show that the muslims were mass murdering them all the time.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al:

Again, I think you are not telling the whole story here.

Yes it does if you read it all, and read the Covenant that also says the same thing. As well as the British mandate that says the same thing as well. So 3 pieces of information that say the Jews were to get all of Palestine, and then there are the LoN treaties that also say that Palestine was to go to the Jews.
No it did not give Palestine to the Jews. Britain confirmed the purpose of the Mandate in its 1939 White Paper.

"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."

But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1939.asp​

(COMMENT)

In 1939, the UK (as Mandatory) was subordinate to the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations ("The Geneva-based commission was established in 1919 under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations to supervise the administration under the mandate system of fifteen mandated territories including four in the Middle East—France's Lebanon and Syria and Britain's Palestine and Iraq." Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa ). The Policy being set here was the voice of only one member; albeit an important Allied Power. As the 1939 White Paper stated:

In the light of these considerations His Majesty's Government make the following declaration of their intentions regarding the future government of Palestine:

The objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. The proposal for the establishment of the independent State would involve consultation with the Council of the League of Nations with a view to the termination of the Mandate.

The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded.

This is very important: (The rest of the story!)

110. The Mandatory’s new statement of policy was examined by the Permanent Mandates Commission at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939. the commission reported that:

• • 
    “the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”

They went on to consider whether the Mandate was open to a new interpretation with which the White Paper would not be at variance. Four of the seven members

• • 
    “did not feel able to state that the policy of the White Paper was in conformity with the Mandate, any contrary conclusion appearing to them to be ruled out by the very terms of the Mandate and by the fundamental intentions of its authors.”

The other three members “were unable to share this opinion; they consider that existing circumstances would justify the policy of the White Paper, provided the Council did not oppose it.”

111. It was the intention of His Majesty’s government to seek the approval of the League Council for their new policy. This, however, they were prevented from doing by the outbreak of war in September.

Source: AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE PALESTINIAN QUESTION A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947

While there are excerpts in the White Paper of 1939, that sound very favorable to the cause P F Tinmore wants to champion, it is a double edged sword for the pro-Palestinian. The Permanent Mandates Commission ultimately rejected the Mandatory's interpretation between the policy outlined in the White Paper and the terms of the Palestine mandate.

It was for that reason that M. Rappard found it difficult to endorse the views put forward by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The latter's interpretation was contrary to his own reading of the mandate: it was contrary to all the previous interpretations of the mandatory Power, and it was contrary to the interpretations of the surviving members of the group responsible for the drafting of the Balfour Declaration: it was contrary to the views of the Jews, and it was also contrary to the views of the Arabs, because the Arabs had from the start objected to the Balfour Declaration and to the mandate itself and, if the mandate and the Balfour Declaration had been susceptible of an interpretation which would have allowed a limitation in deference to the views of the Arabs, M. Rappard did not think they would have objected to the policy.

Having said that, but in the interest of balance, there was a bit of conflict between the position taken by the Permanent Mandates Commission and that of the Anglo-American community of Inquiry. The twelve members of the Committee, signed an unanimous Report* at Lausanne on 20th April 1945.

The committee recommended that the constitutional future of Palestine should be based on three principles:-

I. That Jew shall not dominate Arab and Arab shall not dominate Jew in Palestine
II. That Palestine shall be neither a Jewish state nor an Arab state.
III. That the form of government ultimately to be established, shall, under international guarantees, fully protect and preserve the interests in the Holy land of Christendom and of the Moslem and Jewish Faiths.
​

The committee explicitly rejected partition and concluded that “now and for some time to come any attempt to establish either an independent Palestinian state or independent Palestinian States would result in civil strife such as might threaten the peace of the world”. They accordingly recommended that Palestine should continue to be administered under the Mandate pending the execution of a trusteeship agreement.​

There was plenty of written and spoken communication and debate in "the language of political discourse." In the end, both the Mandatory and the Permanent Mandates Commission recognized that there was irreconcilable differences between the principles of the Jewish and Arab.

• For the Jews the essential point of principle is the creation of sovereign Jewish State.
• For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine.

For many pro-Palestinians, these are the essential differences that remain today.

Most Respectfully,
R

There was plenty of written and spoken communication and debate in "the language of political discourse." In the end, both the Mandatory and the Permanent Mandates Commission recognized that there was irreconcilable differences between the principles of the Jewish and Arab.​

Indeed, and this major British fuck up started a hundred year (and counting) war.

And Britain still supports the continuation of this war.

And it had nothing to do with irreconcilable difference between the principles of the Jews and Arabs going back to 632 C.E. did it. A 1300 year war that was started by a mentally deranged false prophet.

The Jews lived in Palestine without war for hundreds of years before Britain entered and started the war.

Not according the links I have supplied in recent days, they show that the muslims were mass murdering them all the time.

What do you have for about 200 years before the British occupation?