The Balfour Declaration

[danielpalos]

Since this is going to come up in the next few weeks with the 100th anniversary, I figured we should start a thread on it.

The relevant text, for reference:

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may 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."


I'm going to contrast that declaration with Article 2 of the UNGA 1514 of 14 December 1960

2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Is the problem, not of a lack of Statehood, for less fortunate Persons?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Balfour Declaration (LINK)
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

It is pretty safe for a mediocre 21st Century Politician in the UK → who is pandering under the effects from coercion of terrorist, as he said "five shocking examples," and to talk about "Oppression of the Palestinian People" in the wake of actions specifically designed to carried out violent actions --- the aim of which were to seriously intimidate the UK general Population, and with the intention to compel the people, the leaders, and Government to an act that would NOT normally even be considered without the threat of violence. (BTW: It was that cause and those Palestinian people that inspired and incited the violence of which he speaks.)

I had to chuckle when I read the theme on the platform podium: "FOR THE MANY --- NOT THE FEW." At first blush, that mantra sounds correct and dovetails into the theory of "majority rules." But in fact, the educated would say that Majority Rule [the Arab League (population 300 Million - 13Million in in the territories) dominating the Middle East] with Respect for Minority Rights [the Jewish People (8Million) in the Middle East].

Secretary-General's remarks at Conference on "Fighting Terrorism for Humanity: A Conference on the Roots of Evil"

Terrorism is a global threat, and it can never be justified. No end can give anyone the right to kill innocent civilians. On the contrary, the use of terrorism to pursue any cause – even a worthy one – can only defile that cause, and thereby damage it.

While terrorism is an evil with which there can be no compromise, we must use our heads, not our hearts, in deciding our response. The rage we feel at terrorist attacks must not remove our ability to reason. If we are to defeat terrorism, it is our duty, and indeed our interest, to try to understand this deadly phenomenon, and carefully to examine what works, and what does not, in fighting it.​

It should be noted for those that wish for the UK to issue an apology today, that while both the Superpowers (US and USSR) voted for the 1948 Partition Plan, the UK abstained from the vote (political divisiveness).

Best part @ 4:45

Balfour Declaration? Isn't that where Briton promised to give away something that was not theirs?

(COMMENT)

The "Balfour Declaration" was, in the history of post-War reparations - restitution and solutions, one of the most politically courageous actions taken since the "Age of Revolutions" (c. 1800). And while it may have started with the Balfour Declaration, it would not have been made a reality had it not been for the support of the other principle Allied Powers at the post-War San Remo Convention; administering the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries that were fixed by the Allied Powers.

A century ago, the seeds of a Jewish National Home were planted with the Allied Powers in a formal way. Even at that time (1917), the Jewish People were known to have been the victims through centuries of dispersion. The poor implementation of the Administration and the lack of decisiveness in regards to the apparent irreconcilable differences, was a major contributing factor in the Was of Independence. BUT, with Israeli contemporary attention turning its focused on increased Islamic violence in Western Europe. It is no small concern that the use of asymmetric approaches by antisemitic forces in the Arab League have become increasing more effective in rallying anti-Israel/Jewish sentiment. The coercion emanating from the Jihadism, Fedayeen Action, Hostile Insurgents, Radicalized Islamic Behaviors, and Asymmetric Violence is being slowly redirected towards focused developing growth a new cycle of antisemitic (pressure from Majority and to the Minority). The people of the UK and continental Europeans are becoming more and more fearful the violence originating from Arab League and Middle Eastern sources --- then they are worried about the Rights of the Minority and the protection of the Jewish Culture under threat at the far end of the Mediterranean.

I could write a book on the political pressures of a UK politician making such remarks; condemning Israel (which has contributed more to the development of humanity since 1948) than the combined contributions of the 22 Members Arab League in the same period.

The Arab Palestinians understand that "coercion works."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Sixties Fan]

Since this is going to come up in the next few weeks with the 100th anniversary, I figured we should start a thread on it.

The relevant text, for reference:

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may 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."


I'm going to contrast that declaration with Article 2 of the UNGA 1514 of 14 December 1960

2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Is the problem, not of a a lack of Statehood, for less fortunate Persons?

Explain what you mean

 

[danielpalos]

Since this is going to come up in the next few weeks with the 100th anniversary, I figured we should start a thread on it.

The relevant text, for reference:

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may 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."


I'm going to contrast that declaration with Article 2 of the UNGA 1514 of 14 December 1960

2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Is the problem, not of a a lack of Statehood, for less fortunate Persons?

Explain what you mean

The original plan called for two States, not just one.

The State of Israel should have a valuable trading partner on their border.

 

[danielpalos]

I believe Religion cannot be, "on the table"; until all parties can be moral to their own God.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Balfour Declaration?

Isn't that where Briton promised to give away something that was not theirs?

No. Actually, it was where the Allied Powers and the international community decided to uphold the rights of the Jewish people based on their historical connection to their homeland.

Did you want the international community to STOP upholding the rights of people?

Global Glob of Muslime

If the global "community" includes Moslems, It is of no interest to Americans what it upholds.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Balfour Declaration?

Isn't that where Briton promised to give away something that was not theirs?

No. Actually, it was where the Allied Powers and the international community decided to uphold the rights of the Jewish people based on their historical connection to their homeland.

Did you want the international community to STOP upholding the rights of people?

Nice deflection.

Have you answered this?

Did the land belong to the Turks?

Did the land belong to the Arabs?

And I am talking only of the Land of Israel, never mind Mesopotamia, North Africa, Syria, what became Lebanon.

Did any of those lands belong to the Turks, the Arabs or the Iranians?

Dominion

Nature is not a real-estate agent, nor does it recognize seniority rights. The land belongs to whoever can produce the most out of its raw material. That does not include freeloaders off Western advancement, such as the OPECkers.

 

[P F Tinmore]

A century ago, the seeds of a Jewish National Home were planted with the Allied Powers in a formal way.

And those dumbfucks started a hundred year (and counting) war.

 

[Hollie]

A century ago, the seeds of a Jewish National Home were planted with the Allied Powers in a formal way.

And those dumbfucks started a hundred year (and counting) war.

If you had taken the time to understand history, you would come to realize that wars over the last 100 years aimed at Israel were the result of Arab-Moslem aggression in furtherance of islamic politico-religious ideology.

Cutting and pasting canned YouTube videos is not really an effective way for you to understand history.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Balfour Declaration (LINK)
※→ abi, et al,

I think were are trying to apply today's laws with what were laws in the early 20th century...

What part of "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" is so difficult to understand and how could it have been written any more clearly?

(QUESTIONS)

In 1917 and again in 1920: While the term "Religious Rights" might have been understood, you will notice the the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (Amin al-Husseini)(a former Commissioned Officer in the Ottoman Army) was already involved in the eforts to facilitate the Arab-Jewish Riot during the Nabi Musa activities. Al-Husseini, like many of his class and period, then turned from Damascus-oriented Pan-Arabism to a specifically Palestinian ideology, centered on Jerusalem, which sought to block Jewish immigration to Mandatory Palestine.

• In that time period, what did "Religious Rights" actually means?
• Did the Grand Mufti use his political status to further is own political agenda and that of his family?​

In 1917 and again in 1920: While the term "Civil Rights" might have had a completely different meaning; especially in the Arab World. Remember, the British (Unionist, Protestant) majority and the Irish (Nationalist, Catholic) minority following the Partition of Ireland in 1920. Partition was not a subject equated to civil rights, is was a solution.

• What do you understand "civil rights" to mean in the post-War period of WWI?
• Was Partitioning considered an appropriate form as a political solution?​

(COMMENT)

It is foolish to think you can apply 21st Century understanding of Religious and Civil Right to the actions taken nearly a century ago.

A far as the Allied Powers were concern, they decided what is appropriate and what is not. Similarly, in 1948, such rights were interpreted differently --- depending on our venue. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948, although passed --- it is not legally binding and never made it into law. During World War II, the Allied Powers adopted the Four Freedoms — freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from fear, and freedom from want — as their basic war aims.

In say that, we have gone much further than the Four Freedom of the Greatest Generation. But in the first and second generations of the 20th Century --- what were rights and what was law were very different from today.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

Is the problem, not of a lack of Statehood, for less fortunate Persons?

Well, I am not entirely certain what you mean by this, but -- yes. The problem was, and remains, Statehood for the Jewish people. As soon as everyone in the international community acknowledges and recognizes that Israel has fully every right to exist as a State for the Jewish people then the conflict will be easily resolved. Until that happens, the Jewish people are forced to defend themselves.

What is troubling now is the increased unrest (and by "unrest" I mean Arab incitement and terrorism) within the Green Line by Arab Israeli citizens. You think the conflict is bad now? Wait until THAT gains some momentum. There are no good options to respond to that sort of thing.

 

[Shusha]

Balfour Declaration?

Isn't that where Briton promised to give away something that was not theirs?

No. Actually, it was where the Allied Powers and the international community decided to uphold the rights of the Jewish people based on their historical connection to their homeland.

Did you want the international community to STOP upholding the rights of people?

Global Glob of Muslime

If the global "community" includes Moslems, It is of no interest to Americans what it upholds.

The international community does include Muslims. They have done a TERRIBLE job, on a national and international scale, of upholding the rights of people. Their governments need to step up and start upholding the rights of women, children, immigrants, those of other ethnicities and religious faiths, LGBTQ, and others.

It is the Muslim parts of the international community who reject the rights of the Jewish people and the conflict won't be solved until that changes. Fortunately, it IS changing. Slowly. And with significant violence and loss of life to Muslim people globally. And that is going to get worse before it gets better.

 

[Sixties Fan]

The legacy of the declaration is one that BBC reporter Jane Corbin has watched unfold over the last 30 years – charting the conflict on both sides. But it’s also a story that Jane has a personal connection to. One of her own ancestors, Leo Amery, a British politician and Cabinet Minister, played a key part in drafting the original declaration and then oversaw Britain’s governance of Palestine in the 1920s.

Now, on a journey starting in her home village, Jane explores what Leo did and whether the aspirations of The Balfour Declaration – for both sides to live peacefully and prosper together – were doomed to inevitable failure. Or is there still hope of a peaceful solution in the Holy Land?”

(full article online)

One to watch out for on BBC Two

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

RE: Balfour Declaration (LINK)
※→ abi, et al,

I think were are trying to apply today's laws with what were laws in the early 20th century...

What part of "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" is so difficult to understand and how could it have been written any more clearly?

(QUESTIONS)

In 1917 and again in 1920: While the term "Religious Rights" might have been understood, you will notice the the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (Amin al-Husseini)(a former Commissioned Officer in the Ottoman Army) was already involved in the eforts to facilitate the Arab-Jewish Riot during the Nabi Musa activities. Al-Husseini, like many of his class and period, then turned from Damascus-oriented Pan-Arabism to a specifically Palestinian ideology, centered on Jerusalem, which sought to block Jewish immigration to Mandatory Palestine.

• In that time period, what did "Religious Rights" actually means?
• Did the Grand Mufti use his political status to further is own political agenda and that of his family?​

In 1917 and again in 1920: While the term "Civil Rights" might have had a completely different meaning; especially in the Arab World. Remember, the British (Unionist, Protestant) majority and the Irish (Nationalist, Catholic) minority following the Partition of Ireland in 1920. Partition was not a subject equated to civil rights, is was a solution.

• What do you understand "civil rights" to mean in the post-War period of WWI?
• Was Partitioning considered an appropriate form as a political solution?​

(COMMENT)



Most Respectfully,
R

BIG BROTHERHOOD IS WATCHING YOU

There should be no civil rights for the uncivilized. That includes our own feral minorities. The Liberals' appeasement of Nazislamis is an extension of what they do at home.

 

[fanger]

RE: Balfour Declaration (LINK)
※→ abi, et al,

I think were are trying to apply today's laws with what were laws in the early 20th century...

What part of "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" is so difficult to understand and how could it have been written any more clearly?

(QUESTIONS)

In 1917 and again in 1920: While the term "Religious Rights" might have been understood, you will notice the the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (Amin al-Husseini)(a former Commissioned Officer in the Ottoman Army) was already involved in the eforts to facilitate the Arab-Jewish Riot during the Nabi Musa activities. Al-Husseini, like many of his class and period, then turned from Damascus-oriented Pan-Arabism to a specifically Palestinian ideology, centered on Jerusalem, which sought to block Jewish immigration to Mandatory Palestine.

• In that time period, what did "Religious Rights" actually means?
• Did the Grand Mufti use his political status to further is own political agenda and that of his family?​

In 1917 and again in 1920: While the term "Civil Rights" might have had a completely different meaning; especially in the Arab World. Remember, the British (Unionist, Protestant) majority and the Irish (Nationalist, Catholic) minority following the Partition of Ireland in 1920. Partition was not a subject equated to civil rights, is was a solution.

• What do you understand "civil rights" to mean in the post-War period of WWI?
• Was Partitioning considered an appropriate form as a political solution?​

(COMMENT)



Most Respectfully,
R

BIG BROTHERHOOD IS WATCHING YOU

There should be no civil rights for the uncivilized. That includes our own feral minorities. The Liberals' appeasement of Nazislamis is an extension of what they do at home.

" There should be no civil rights for the uncivilized." the word you were looking for is Untermensch - Wikipedia

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Balfour Declaration?

Isn't that where Briton promised to give away something that was not theirs?

No. Actually, it was where the Allied Powers and the international community decided to uphold the rights of the Jewish people based on their historical connection to their homeland.

Did you want the international community to STOP upholding the rights of people?

Global Glob of Muslime

If the global "community" includes Moslems, It is of no interest to Americans what it upholds.

The international community does include Muslims. They have done a TERRIBLE job, on a national and international scale, of upholding the rights of people. Their governments need to step up and start upholding the rights of women, children, immigrants, those of other ethnicities and religious faiths, LGBTQ, and others.

It is the Muslim parts of the international community who reject the rights of the Jewish people and the conflict won't be solved until that changes. Fortunately, it IS changing. Slowly. And with significant violence and loss of life to Muslim people globally. And that is going to get worse before it gets better.

New Age Sewage

Your formless glob of Globalism might get bought by a museum of Postmodern "art." But you do have the worthless but prominent opinionators behind you. Both the degenerate Left and the brain-dead Right yap on and on about the lack of civil liberties in the Moslem countries. But that is irrelevant and gets us into conflicts for the wrong reason.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The legacy of the declaration is one that BBC reporter Jane Corbin has watched unfold over the last 30 years – charting the conflict on both sides. But it’s also a story that Jane has a personal connection to. One of her own ancestors, Leo Amery, a British politician and Cabinet Minister, played a key part in drafting the original declaration and then oversaw Britain’s governance of Palestine in the 1920s.

Now, on a journey starting in her home village, Jane explores what Leo did and whether the aspirations of The Balfour Declaration – for both sides to live peacefully and prosper together – were doomed to inevitable failure. Or is there still hope of a peaceful solution in the Holy Land?”

(full article online)

One to watch out for on BBC Two

First, BBC Watch is an Israeli propaganda organization.

That said:

The Balfour Declaration was incorporated into the British Mandate for Palestine. The Mandate was to facilitate Palestinian citizenship for the Jews and help create an independent Palestinian state. Britain failed to do that and passed Palestine off to the UNSCOP.

Ignoring that, the Zionists unilaterally took over most of Palestine by illegal military conquest.

 

[Hollie]

The legacy of the declaration is one that BBC reporter Jane Corbin has watched unfold over the last 30 years – charting the conflict on both sides. But it’s also a story that Jane has a personal connection to. One of her own ancestors, Leo Amery, a British politician and Cabinet Minister, played a key part in drafting the original declaration and then oversaw Britain’s governance of Palestine in the 1920s.

Now, on a journey starting in her home village, Jane explores what Leo did and whether the aspirations of The Balfour Declaration – for both sides to live peacefully and prosper together – were doomed to inevitable failure. Or is there still hope of a peaceful solution in the Holy Land?”

(full article online)

One to watch out for on BBC Two

First, BBC Watch is an Israeli propaganda organization.

That said:

The Balfour Declaration was incorporated into the British Mandate for Palestine. The Mandate was to facilitate Palestinian citizenship for the Jews and help create an independent Palestinian state. Britain failed to do that and passed Palestine off to the UNSCOP.

Ignoring that, the Zionists unilaterally took over most of Palestine by illegal military conquest.

Are you suggesting The Zionist Entity™ did what the Turks and
The Islamist Entity™ did?

 

[Shusha]

The Balfour Declaration was incorporated into the British Mandate for Palestine. The Mandate was to facilitate Palestinian citizenship for the Jews and help create an independent Palestinian state. Britain failed to do that and passed Palestine off to the UNSCOP.

Ignoring that, the Zionists unilaterally took over most of Palestine by illegal military conquest.

Well, you might be able to argue that Britain failed to accomplish the creation of an independent Palestinian state, but an independent Palestinian state was certainly created (Israel). As you stated, the intent was for the Jewish people (all of them) to have citizenship, which they did and do. As do the Arab people.

There was no military conquest. We know this because (as you stated above) the Jewish citizens had every right to be citizens. They weren't conquering anything, they were participating within the legal framework of the time.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Balfour Declaration was incorporated into the British Mandate for Palestine. The Mandate was to facilitate Palestinian citizenship for the Jews and help create an independent Palestinian state. Britain failed to do that and passed Palestine off to the UNSCOP.

Ignoring that, the Zionists unilaterally took over most of Palestine by illegal military conquest.

Well, you might be able to argue that Britain failed to accomplish the creation of an independent Palestinian state, but an independent Palestinian state was certainly created (Israel). As you stated, the intent was for the Jewish people (all of them) to have citizenship, which they did and do. As do the Arab people.

There was no military conquest. We know this because (as you stated above) the Jewish citizens had every right to be citizens. They weren't conquering anything, they were participating within the legal framework of the time.

The Zionist's colonial project was not part of Palestine. It was a separate entity.