The Balfour Declaration

[Rigby5]

RE: The Balfour Declaration
SUBTOPIC: Legal Authority
⁜→ Rigby5, et al,

Not that it make any difference, your argument is still faulty.


(RECOMMENDED CORRECTION)

A/RES/181(II) Question of Palestine 29 November 1947

PART II
Boundaries
B. The Jewish State
​

The north-eastern sector of the Jewish State (Eastern) Galilee) is bounded on the north and west by the Lebanese frontier and on the east by the frontiers of Syria and Transjordan. It includes the whole of the Hula Basin, Lake Tiberias, the whole of the Beisan sub-district, the boundary line being extended to the crest of the Gilboa mountains and the Wadi Malih. From there the Jewish State extends north-west, following the boundary described in respect of the Arab State.

The Jewish Section of the coastal plain extends from a point between Minat et Qila and Nabi Yunis in the Gaza sub-district and includes the towns of Haifa and Tel-Aviv, leaving Jaffa as an enclave of the Arab State. The eastern frontier of the Jewish State follows the boundary described in respect of the Arab State.

The Beersheba area comprises the whole of the Beersheba sub-district, including the Negeb and the eastern part of the Gaza sub-district, but excluding the town of Beersheba and those areas described in respect of the Arab State. It includes also a strip of land along the Dead Sea stretching from the Beersheba-Hebron sub-district boundary line to Ein Geddi, as described in respect of the Arab State.

( Ω )

This (A/RES/181 II) is a non-binding agreement between the Membership; a recommendation adopted by the UN. However, it is not what the Israelis used as an authority (it Was merely a guide). (See Posting #696)

Most Respectfully,
R

That is the 1947 UN action which illegally created the Jewish state of Israel.
We were discussing the Treaty of San Remo and the Treaty of Sevres, which created the British Mandate for Palestine, which repudiated any Jewish state or national sovereignty.

 

[Rigby5]

A national reconstitution specifically does..
Of the binding documents your reference, all mention that.

In the meantime I don't see your quote mentioning anything about "Arab national rights".

WRONG!

Here is the Balfour Declaration, and it does NOT mention anything about a reconstituted nation at all.
In fact, not one single document ever talks about a Jewish nation or state until 1947.

{...
Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you. on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet
His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors 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 should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours,

Arthur James Balfour
...}

A national home NOT a Jewish nation.

 

[rylah]

I already gave you a reference, the Churchill Whitepaper of 1922.
Since the population of Palestine was less than 5% Jewish at the time of the British Mandate for Palestine, and that it was to repay the Arabs for defeating the Ottoman Empire, there was no reason to assume the mandate was for anyone but the Moslem Arabs.

Jews could be even less than that, what matters is international law.
While you cannot explain whether the White paper is even legal...
and neither of what you say is mentioned anywhere.

So what does that mean beside a big mouth?

 

[Rigby5]

But you cannot explain whether the White paper is even legal...
and neither of what you say is mentioned anywhere.

So what does that give you beside a big mouth?

Wrong.
The Churchill Whitepaper of 1922, was the official British government release.
It is not only legal, but the law.

{...
The Churchill White Paper of 3 June 1922 (sometimes referred to as "British Policy in Palestine") was drafted at the request of Winston Churchill, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, partly in response to the 1921 Jaffa Riots. The official name of the document was Palestine: Correspondence with the Palestine Arab Delegation and the Zionist Organisation. The white paper was made up of nine documents and "Churchill's memorandum" was an enclosure to document number 5.[1] While maintaining Britain's commitment to the Balfour Declaration and its promise of a Jewish national home in Palestine, the paper emphasized that the establishment of a national home would not impose a Jewish nationality on the Arab inhabitants of Palestine. To reduce tensions between the Arabs and Jews in Palestine the paper called for a limitation of Jewish immigration to the economic capacity of the country to absorb new arrivals. This limitation was considered a great setback to many in the Zionist movement, though it acknowledged that the Jews should be able to increase their numbers through immigration rather than sufferance.
...
On 23 October 1918 following the Sinai and Palestine Campaign of World War I, the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration was established over Levantine provinces of the former Ottoman Empire. Earlier, on 1 October 1918, General Allenby had been authorized to permit the hoisting of the Arab flag at Damascus.[2] An Arab government was announced on 5 October 1918 and gained de facto independence after the withdrawal of the British forces on 26 November 1919.
...
As one author put it, quoting a 6 June 1920 report to the Foreign Office, "..what struck me most of all was that nobody seemed to know what the Zionist policy of His Majesty’s Government meant."[24] Churchill quoted Samuel in the first full parliamentary debate of 14 June 1921 on Palestine[25] and wherein he defended the policy and the mandates arguing that it had all been agreed prior, it was important for Britain to keep its word and that provided immigration were properly regulated then that would benefit the economy.[26]

It was Herbert Samuel who insisted, on returning to London in May, on a "definitive" interpretation of the Declaration. Although supporting the principle, the policy restricted the interpretation of a "national home," geographically excluding the territory east of the Jordan River; politically, by defining it in terms of "development of the existing community"; and numerically, limiting future immigration to "the economic capacity of the country".[27]

The "British Policy in Palestine" (enclosure in document #5 of the white paper) was accepted by the Zionist Organization (document #7 of the white paper) and rejected by the Palestinians (document #6 of the white paper)[28] Shortly thereafter, the House of Lords rejected a Palestine Mandate that incorporated the Balfour Declaration by 60 votes to 25.[29][30] The vote was subsequently overruled by a vote of 292 to 35 in the House of Commons.[29]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_White_Paper#cite_note-33

The white paper, formalized as a Palestine Order in Council in August,[33] reaffirmed the British commitment to a national home, promised that Palestine would not become a Jewish State and that Arabs would not be subordinated to Jews. Fieldhouse further says that the white paper "interpreted and subtly modified the harshness of the mandate." It pointed out that the Balfour Declaration did "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" and affirming the right to Jewish immigration but subject to the concept of "economic absorptive capacity".[34]
...}

Churchill White Paper - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What I said was mentioned everywhere.
Which is that the British were sympathetic to the creation of a national Jewish homeland inside of an Arab Palestine.

 

[rylah]

WRONG!

Here is the Balfour Declaration, and it does NOT mention anything about a reconstituted nation at all.
In fact, not one single document ever talks about a Jewish nation or state until 1947.

{...
Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,


Yours,

Arthur James Balfour
...}

A national home NOT a Jewish nation

.A national home NOT a Jewish nation.

Reading 101

Who's national home?

 

[Rigby5]

As far as legality, there is zero basis for a Jewish state.
In 1920, the population of Palestine was less than 5% Jewish, it was the Arab Palestinians who had just fought and beat the Ottoman Empire, and the British had no authority to promise Jews anything, since they did not in any way own Palestine.

 

[rylah]

Wrong.
The Churchill Whitepaper of 1922, was the official British government release.
It is not only legal, but the law.

{...
The Churchill White Paper of 3 June 1922 (sometimes referred to as "British Policy in Palestine") was drafted at the request of Winston Churchill, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, partly in response to the 1921 Jaffa Riots. The official name of the document was Palestine: Correspondence with the Palestine Arab Delegation and the Zionist Organisation. The white paper was made up of nine documents and "Churchill's memorandum" was an enclosure to document number 5.[1] While maintaining Britain's commitment to the Balfour Declaration and its promise of a Jewish national home in Palestine, the paper emphasized that the establishment of a national home would not impose a Jewish nationality on the Arab inhabitants of Palestine. To reduce tensions between the Arabs and Jews in Palestine the paper called for a limitation of Jewish immigration to the economic capacity of the country to absorb new arrivals. This limitation was considered a great setback to many in the Zionist movement, though it acknowledged that the Jews should be able to increase their numbers through immigration rather than sufferance.
...
On 23 October 1918 following the Sinai and Palestine Campaign of World War I, the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration was established over Levantine provinces of the former Ottoman Empire. Earlier, on 1 October 1918, General Allenby had been authorized to permit the hoisting of the Arab flag at Damascus.[2] An Arab government was announced on 5 October 1918 and gained de facto independence after the withdrawal of the British forces on 26 November 1919.
...
As one author put it, quoting a 6 June 1920 report to the Foreign Office, "..what struck me most of all was that nobody seemed to know what the Zionist policy of His Majesty’s Government meant."[24] Churchill quoted Samuel in the first full parliamentary debate of 14 June 1921 on Palestine[25] and wherein he defended the policy and the mandates arguing that it had all been agreed prior, it was important for Britain to keep its word and that provided immigration were properly regulated then that would benefit the economy.[26]

It was Herbert Samuel who insisted, on returning to London in May, on a "definitive" interpretation of the Declaration. Although supporting the principle, the policy restricted the interpretation of a "national home," geographically excluding the territory east of the Jordan River; politically, by defining it in terms of "development of the existing community"; and numerically, limiting future immigration to "the economic capacity of the country".[27]

The "British Policy in Palestine" (enclosure in document #5 of the white paper) was accepted by the Zionist Organization (document #7 of the white paper) and rejected by the Palestinians (document #6 of the white paper)[28] Shortly thereafter, the House of Lords rejected a Palestine Mandate that incorporated the Balfour Declaration by 60 votes to 25.[29][30] The vote was subsequently overruled by a vote of 292 to 35 in the House of Commons.[29]Churchill White Paper - Wikipedia

The white paper, formalized as a Palestine Order in Council in August,[33] reaffirmed the British commitment to a national home, promised that Palestine would not become a Jewish State and that Arabs would not be subordinated to Jews. Fieldhouse further says that the white paper "interpreted and subtly modified the harshness of the mandate." It pointed out that the Balfour Declaration did "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" and affirming the right to Jewish immigration but subject to the concept of "economic absorptive capacity".[34]
...}

Churchill White Paper - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What I said was mentioned everywhere.
Which is that the British were sympathetic to the creation of a national Jewish homeland inside of an Arab Palestine.

The Churchill Whitepaper of 1922, was the official British government release.
It is not only legal, but the law.

Only that doesn't make it a law,
let alone international.

Try again.

 

[Rigby5]

Reading 101

Who's national home?

A "national home" means a home land that is inside of one nation, and not spread out over many nations.
In no way had a national home ever means sovereignty.

 

[Rigby5]

Only that doesn't make it a law,
let alone international.

Try again.

Wrong again.
Sir Winston Churchill was not giving his personal opinion, but instead this was the official government ruling he was having drafted.
It was the official interpretation of law.

{... was drafted at the request of Winston Churchill, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, ...}

This was the government release by the bureaucrat in charge.
That IS law.

What makes it international was that the British had been given authority over Palestine, and the French were to administer over Syria,
That is where the Treaties I listed come in.
And they all only mention a homeland for Jews inside of a sovereign Arab Palestine.
It can be no other way, as by then the democratic principle of majority rule were internationally recognized and over 95% of the population of Palestine were Moslem Arabs.

 

[rylah]

A "national home" means a home land that is inside of one nation, and not spread out over many nations.
In no way had a national home ever means sovereignty.

Yet that's how the declaration was finalized into law.
How do you re-constitute a nation?

 

[rylah]

Wrong again.
Sir Winston Churchill was not giving his personal opinion, but instead this was the official government ruling he was having drafted.
It was the official interpretation of law.

{... was drafted at the request of Winston Churchill, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, ...}

This was the government release by the bureaucrat in charge.
That IS law.

What makes it international was that the British had been given authority over Palestine, and the French were to administer over Syria,
That is where the Treaties I listed come in.
And they all only mention a homeland for Jews inside of a sovereign Arab Palestine.
It can be no other way, as by then the democratic principle of majority rule were internationally recognized and over 95% of the population of Palestine were Moslem Arabs.

But what legal standing such a ruling have
when it contradicts international law?

Exactly nada, as all the rest of your
Arab supremacist gibberish.

 

[Rigby5]

Yet that's how the declaration was finalized into law.
How do you re-constitute a nation?

No one ever agreed to or wanted to "re-constitute a nation".
First of all, Jews never lived in one nation, but there was Judea, Samaria, and Israel.
But those disappeared around 650 BC, and never to be seen again.
And you can not over rule the current natives, who are Arab Molsems.
That is the whole basis for any government these days, a democratic republic based on inherent native rights.
To attempt to "re-constitute" some mythical or historic country would be inherently illegal and immoral because it would violate the current rights of the current population, who obviously have priority.

 

[Rigby5]

But what legal standing such a ruling have
when it contradicts international law?

Exactly nada, as all the rest of your
Arab supremacist gibberish.

Wrong.
International law favors the native Palestinians.
There is no international law even remotely justifying the creation of Israel.

England had no authority to create a Jewish nation, even if they wanted to.
It would violate international laws.
So the Churchill Whitepaper just reiterated international law, which was that the native Palestinian Arabs had an inherent right to self rule.
Recent illegal immigrant Jews did not.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The Balfour Declaration
SUBTOPIC: Legal Authority
⁜→ Rigby5, et al,

Not that it make any difference, your argument is still faulty.


(RECOMMENDED CORRECTION)

A/RES/181(II) Question of Palestine 29 November 1947

PART II
Boundaries
B. The Jewish State
​

The north-eastern sector of the Jewish State (Eastern) Galilee) is bounded on the north and west by the Lebanese frontier and on the east by the frontiers of Syria and Transjordan. It includes the whole of the Hula Basin, Lake Tiberias, the whole of the Beisan sub-district, the boundary line being extended to the crest of the Gilboa mountains and the Wadi Malih. From there the Jewish State extends north-west, following the boundary described in respect of the Arab State.

The Jewish Section of the coastal plain extends from a point between Minat et Qila and Nabi Yunis in the Gaza sub-district and includes the towns of Haifa and Tel-Aviv, leaving Jaffa as an enclave of the Arab State. The eastern frontier of the Jewish State follows the boundary described in respect of the Arab State.

The Beersheba area comprises the whole of the Beersheba sub-district, including the Negeb and the eastern part of the Gaza sub-district, but excluding the town of Beersheba and those areas described in respect of the Arab State. It includes also a strip of land along the Dead Sea stretching from the Beersheba-Hebron sub-district boundary line to Ein Geddi, as described in respect of the Arab State.

( Ω )

This (A/RES/181 II) is a non-binding agreement between the Membership; a recommendation adopted by the UN. However, it is not what the Israelis used as an authority (it Was merely a guide). (See Posting #696)

Most Respectfully,
R

Ahhh, the resolution that was never implemented.

But Israel mentioned it in its Declaration of Independence to pretend to have some legitimacy.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Wrong.
International law favors the native Palestinians.
There is no international law even remotely justifying the creation of Israel.

England had no authority to create a Jewish nation, even if they wanted to.
It would violate international laws.
So the Churchill Whitepaper just reiterated international law, which was that the native Palestinian Arabs had an inherent right to self rule.
Recent illegal immigrant Jews did not.

Indeed, the white paper did not change anything, It merely clarified.

The "national home" was for Jews who immigrated to Palestine to obtain Palestinian citizenship along with the native Palestinians.

 

[rylah]

No one ever agreed to or wanted to "re-constitute a nation".

Then how was San Remo signed into law,
not by international agreement?

First of all, Jews never lived in one nation, but there was Judea, Samaria, and Israel.

If you want to go that way,
Arabs don't live in one nation - then what?

But those disappeared around 650 BC, and never to be seen again.

Jews disappeared by having a continuous presence in the land for more that 3500 years,
only to be confirmed their rights in international law - and never to be seen again?

Then probably your allah is not that akhbar after all...

And you can not over rule the current natives, who are Arab Molsems.
That is the whole basis for any government these days, a democratic republic based on inherent native rights.
To attempt to "re-constitute" some mythical or historic country would be inherently illegal and immoral because it would violate the current rights of the current population, who obviously have priority.

If democracy is based on inherent native rights,
then Arab Moslems have no title to Palestine and Africa.

 

[rylah]

Ahhh, the resolution that was never implemented.

But Israel mentioned it in its Declaration of Independence to pretend to have some legitimacy.

What was mentioned is reaffirmation of Jewish national rights,
and the legitimacy of international law.

Of course Arab supremacists
can't grasp the concept.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The Balfour Declaration
SUBTOPIC: Legal Authority
⁜→ Rigby5, et al,

There has been much said about the 1922 Churchill White Paper. But as in any government throughout history, there are various political positions and interpretations on any subject under discussion. This is no less true with the British Government. First one regime is in power with their position in strength, then later another regime comes into power and promotes the view they find most advantageous.

561682[/ATTACH]
SOURCE: A/AC.14/8. 2 October 1947

I think a very telling passagre here is:

• "If your Delegation really represents the present attitude of the majority of the Arab population of Palestine, and Mr. Churchill (then Colonial Secretary) Has no grounds for suggesting that this is not the case, it is quite clear that the creation at this stage of a national government would preclude the fulfilment of the pledge made by the British government to the Jewish people."

I already gave you a reference, the Churchill Whitepaper of 1922.
Since the population of Palestine was less than 5% Jewish at the time of the British Mandate for Palestine, and that it was to repay the Arabs for defeating the Ottoman Empire, there was no reason to assume the mandate was for anyone but the Moslem Arabs.

(COMMENT)
.
Attempting to look backwards into the distant past, by conflicting political views, over any significant period in which very controversial decisions and policies were made → we are bound to find multiple opinions, not all (necessarily) in agreement with all the other views.

You cannot engage in pedantic and dogmatic fault-finding with how governments, of that era a century ago, implemented their policies or wrote policy without appreciating the banter between political entities.

This is not a football game in which you can halt the game, call up the instant replay, and roll back the clock or replay the down. World opinion cannot simply declare the most successful government in the region "illegal" and replace it with the most corrupt of the regional governments. And to quibble over the meaning of a very few politically worded phrases of yesteryear, and to try and redefine those key passages of modern definitions or new laws and covenants is nothing more than to totally disregard the political pressures of the time. You simply cannot apply 21st Century logic to issue faced in the 20th Century.

You have to address the situation as it exists today. You have to look forward in time and develop solutions that will stand the test of time. And you have to introduce morals, values, and principles that with not ultimately result in the outbreak of hostilities in the region.
.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The Balfour Declaration
SUBTOPIC: Legal Authority
⁜→ Rigby5, et al,

There has been much said about the 1922 Churchill White Paper. But as in any government throughout history, there are various political positions and interpretations on any subject under discussion. This is no less true with the British Government. First one regime is in power with their position in strength, then later another regime comes into power and promotes the view they find most advantageous.

​

I think a very telling passagre here is:

• "If your Delegation really represents the present attitude of the majority of the Arab population of Palestine, and Mr. Churchill (then Colonial Secretary) Has no grounds for suggesting that this is not the case, it is quite clear that the creation at this stage of a national government would preclude the fulfilment of the pledge made by the British government to the Jewish people."

(COMMENT)
.
Attempting to look backwards into the distant past, by conflicting political views, over any significant period in which very controversial decisions and policies were made → we are bound to find multiple opinions, not all (necessarily) in agreement with all the other views.

You cannot engage in pedantic and dogmatic fault-finding with how governments, of that era a century ago, implemented their policies or wrote policy without appreciating the banter between political entities.

This is not a football game in which you can halt the game, call up the instant replay, and roll back the clock or replay the down. World opinion cannot simply declare the most successful government in the region "illegal" and replace it with the most corrupt of the regional governments. And to quibble over the meaning of a very few politically worded phrases of yesteryear, and to try and redefine those key passages of modern definitions or new laws and covenants is nothing more than to totally disregard the political pressures of the time. You simply cannot apply 21st Century logic to issue faced in the 20th Century.

You have to address the situation as it exists today. You have to look forward in time and develop solutions that will stand the test of time. And you have to introduce morals, values, and principles that with not ultimately result in the outbreak of hostilities in the region.
.

Most Respectfully,
R

The 1939 White Paper more or less reiterated the paper of 1922.

The White Paper of 1939 introduced three measures: immigration quotas for Jews arriving in Palestine, restrictions on settlement and land sales to Jews, and constitutional measures that would lead to a single state under Arab majority rule, with provisions to protect the rights of the Jewish minority.

If Britain was to create a Jewish state, they had three decades to do it. Why didn't they get it done? They left the place in shambles.

 

[Hollie]

The 1939 White Paper more or less reiterated the paper of 1922.



If Britain was to create a Jewish state, they had three decades to do it. Why didn't they get it done? They left the place in shambles.

The British left nothing in shambles. You're looking for excuses why the Arabs-Moslems could not achieve the successes at building a working civil government and a world-class economy as the Israelis did.

You want excuses for your own failures.