The OLDER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Well, I don't think I'm a person who shows prejudicial treatment against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

First the Balfour Declaration is NOT AN AGREEMENT. It is a notice of intention.

If the Balfour Declaration was not an agreement, then the British would not have used it to usurp, illegally, the terms of the Covenant.

(COMMENT)

In order for there to be an "Agreement" (a promise in exchange for a promise) there has to be (among other requirements):

• There has to be (at least) two parties.

• There must be an "offer" made by one party to another party. And the "offer" must be "accept" by the party to which the offer was made. The "offer" must be very plain and clear, the meaning understood by both parties.

• Each party must be in agreement ("Mutual Assent"). Each party must agree to the terms and definitions used. Assent (the expression of approval or agreement) may be shown by either in explicit words or unmistakeable deeds.

• There must be some form of Consideration --- something of value in return for something of value; each party exchanging something of value with the other.

Additionally, there is a question of "capacity" and the format/content in which such an agreement must take. You will notice that an Armistice Agreement is somewhat different from a Peace Treaty, which is again different from a Pledge and Authority like the Nonproliferation Treaty.
​

The Balfour Declaration has none of these components. Even the idea of a "national home" is really undefined.

Israel is a western outpost. No different than Algeria, Rhodesia or South Africa before their return to native rule. Israel as the source of much of the conflict between the west and Muslims outweighs any over advertised "contributions". Most are based on stolen technology anyway.

(COMMENT)

I have no idea what this is about. To be an "outpost" Israel must be subordinate to some center. That is simply not so. While there are direct ties to the incite to violence by Muslim Clerics, or calls for Jihad, it was not a religious conflict (as much as some Arab-Palestinians want it to be). And the Israelis are surely not stealing and great technological secrets from the Arab-Palestinians.

You are basically a racist Rocco. You believe that Europeans should rule over non-Europeans and have a visceral hate of Arabs, Christian and Muslims.

(COMMENT)

I don't respond well to attacks directed against me (personally) rather than the position I hold or the content I made.

Israel will revert to native rule eventually, it is just a matter of time. Whether it turns out to be a Rhodesian or South African result depends on the Israelis.

(COMMENT)

Surely we all know that with time, situations evolve. As we speak, about three-quarters of Israelis population are native born. They are becoming part of the land. And vis-versa. Just as more and more Israelis are born in Israel, fewer and fewer Arab-Palestinians have ties to Israel. Most refugees are not true refugees but the citizens of another country (at least once).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

To be honest, I don't quite know how to address that concept.

The Allied Powers tried to give more than 80% of the Territory to which the Mandate applied to the Arabs, and the Hashemites accepted, but the Arab Palestinians rejected.

Using the term "give" in this context is ludicrous. What land can you "give" to a people who have already been living there for an untold number of generations? And what would you do with those people if you did not "give" them that land?

(COMMENT)

Just as "title and rights" were passed from the Ottoman Sovereign to the Allied Powers, the Allied Powers tried to involve the Arab Palestinians in the self-governing process which they rejected on at least three or more occasions.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

To be honest, I don't quite know how to address that concept.

The Allied Powers tried to give more than 80% of the Territory to which the Mandate applied to the Arabs, and the Hashemites accepted, but the Arab Palestinians rejected.

Using the term "give" in this context is ludicrous. What land can you "give" to a people who have already been living there for an untold number of generations? And what would you do with those people if you did not "give" them that land?

(COMMENT)

Just as "title and rights" were passed from the Ottoman Sovereign to the Allied Powers, the Allied Powers tried to involve the Arab Palestinians in the self-governing process which they rejected on at least three or more occasions.

Most Respectfully,
R

Not true.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Be more specific.

P F Tinmore, et al,

To be honest, I don't quite know how to address that concept.

The Allied Powers tried to give more than 80% of the Territory to which the Mandate applied to the Arabs, and the Hashemites accepted, but the Arab Palestinians rejected.

Using the term "give" in this context is ludicrous. What land can you "give" to a people who have already been living there for an untold number of generations? And what would you do with those people if you did not "give" them that land?

(COMMENT)

Just as "title and rights" were passed from the Ottoman Sovereign to the Allied Powers, the Allied Powers tried to involve the Arab Palestinians in the self-governing process which they rejected on at least three or more occasions.

Most Respectfully,
R

Not true.

(COMMENT)

What is not true?

Is it the part where the Ottoman/Turks passed the "title and rights" to the Allied Powers. (Article 16, Lausanne Treaty)

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
​

Is the Arab-Palestinians rejected participations in the self-governing process.

Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Be more specific.

P F Tinmore, et al,

To be honest, I don't quite know how to address that concept.

The Allied Powers tried to give more than 80% of the Territory to which the Mandate applied to the Arabs, and the Hashemites accepted, but the Arab Palestinians rejected.

Using the term "give" in this context is ludicrous. What land can you "give" to a people who have already been living there for an untold number of generations? And what would you do with those people if you did not "give" them that land?

(COMMENT)

Just as "title and rights" were passed from the Ottoman Sovereign to the Allied Powers, the Allied Powers tried to involve the Arab Palestinians in the self-governing process which they rejected on at least three or more occasions.

Most Respectfully,
R

Not true.

(COMMENT)

What is not true?

Is it the part where the Ottoman/Turks passed the "title and rights" to the Allied Powers. (Article 16, Lausanne Treaty)

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.
​

Is the Arab-Palestinians rejected participations in the self-governing process.

Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government.​

Everything offered to the Palestinians required them to buy into the colonial project. Of course they would reject that.

 

[teddyearp]

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."

Article 22 did not exclude the inhabitants of Palestine.

When the British signed the Covenant they represented that previous agreements, inconsistent with the Covenant, had been abrogated, including the Balfour Declaration.

Not true at all. Why not include the other part of Article 22 that you left out?:

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.

Link (since monti left it out): Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

Notice that the word Mandatory is capitalized, as then we have the British Mandatory for Palestine which then reaffirmed the Balfour Declaration (thought it was just a declaration as y'all point out) it (the LoN) now made it part of the Mandate (a legal instrument):

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, 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.[37]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briti...legal_instrument)#cite_note-AvalonPalmanda-37

Link: British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cherry picking again . . . .

 

[teddyearp]

The Balfour Declaration is not an agreement; but, a statement of intent by one of the Allied Powers.

Indeed, it had zero legal weight.

But it was later incorporated into the British Mandate for Palestine which was a legal document.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Balfour Declaration is not an agreement; but, a statement of intent by one of the Allied Powers.

Indeed, it had zero legal weight.

But it was later incorporated into the British Mandate for Palestine which was a legal document.

That depends on how you define a legal document. If Italy and Germany signed a treaty defining a mutual border in the middle of France, would that be a legal document?

 

[teddyearp]

That depends on how you define a legal document. If Italy and Germany signed a treaty defining a mutual border in the middle of France, would that be a legal document?

So you're implying that the Mandate implemented by the LoN was not legal at all?

You're a funny guy. You call anything that doesn't fit your narrative 'illegal' yet you scram to any tiny thing on your pretzel that supports your narrative and call it legal, no matter how far fetched and cherry picked it is.

 

[Vigilante]

Words for today.....

Mod Edit - please review the OP and try to stick to the topic.

 

[Shusha]

That depends on how you define a legal document. If Italy and Germany signed a treaty defining a mutual border in the middle of France, would that be a legal document?

So wait. Are you saying the entire Mandate system is illegal? Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan are illegitimate? THAT is quite a remarkable statement.

 

[Shusha]

The Palestinians are the native people of Palestine ... Non-Christians, including Jews only returned to the area with the Muslim conquest.

Am I the only one who sees the irony of claiming the Palestinians to be indigenous in the context of a Muslim conquest?

Am I the only one who sees the irony of denying the claim of the Jewish people in the context of their return to the area?

 

[Billo_Really]

Am I the only one who sees the irony of claiming the Palestinians to be indigenous in the context of a Muslim conquest?

Am I the only one who sees the irony of denying the claim of the Jewish people in the context of their return to the area?

Arguing Arabs are not indigenous to Palestine, is as stupid as arguing gravity plays no role in plane crashes.

The British government made a mistake helping to create a Zionist state in an Arab country. According to the UN...

...in disregard of the inherent rights and the wishes of the Palestinian people, the British Government had given Zionist leaders separate assurances regarding the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people in Palestine", an undertaking that sowed the seeds of prolonged conflict in Palestine.​

And yes, legally, the Mandate did not have the authority to take land away from one group of people and give it to another group. Especially, a group of major assholes, who walk around thinking their shit don't stink.

The decision on the Mandate did not take into account the wishes of the people of Palestine, despite the Covenant's requirements that "the wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory".​

Thus making the Mandate invalid.

During the period of the Mandate, the Zionist Organization worked to secure the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. The indigenous people of Palestine, whose forefathers had inhabited the land for virtually the two preceding millennia felt this design to be a violation of their natural and inalienable rights. They also viewed it as an infringement of assurances of independence given by the Allied Powers to Arab leaders in return for their support during the war. The result was mounting resistance to the Mandate by Palestinian Arabs, followed by resort to violence by the Jewish community as the Second World War drew to a close.​

Israel exists, but it certainly doesn't have a right to.

 

[Shusha]

Arguing Arabs are not indigenous to Palestine, is as stupid as arguing gravity plays no role in plane crashes.

Really? In the context of the Arab Muslim conquest? Then you will have no trouble differentiating for me those who have lived in the land for thousands of years and those who were part of the Arab Muslim conquest. Feel free to use any of the common distinguishing factors such as: language, tribal affiliation, customs, legal systems, religious faith, modes of dress, traditional foods, holidays, celebrations of life events, place names, archeological finds, places of worship, myths and stories.

Keep in mind my purpose here is NOT to reject the rights of Arab Muslim Palestinians to a homeland within the disputed territories. I believe, absolutely, that they have that right. But only to counter the rejection of those same rights of the Jewish people who have a FAR better claim to being indigenous to the land by rights of each and every one of those distinguishing factors named above.

 

[Shusha]

And yes, legally, the Mandate did not have the authority to take land away from one group of people and give it to another group.

The Mandate did no such thing. The Mandate did not take land away from anyone. What the Mandate did was assign self-determination under national sovereignty of specific territories to those groups who lived in those territories.

The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Syrians and formed the State of Syria. Jewish people lived in Syria. Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Syria?

The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Lebanese and formed the State of Lebanon. Jewish people lived in Lebanon. Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Lebanon?

The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Jordanian people and formed the State of Jordan. Jewish people lived in Jordan. Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Jordan?

Just so, the Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Jewish people and formed the State of Israel, by right of the Jewish people's historical connection to the land. Arab Muslims lived in Israel.

Denial of the Jewish people to ALSO have rights to a national homeland, while giving those rights to others, is hypocritical.

 

[montelatici]

That depends on how you define a legal document. If Italy and Germany signed a treaty defining a mutual border in the middle of France, would that be a legal document?

So wait. Are you saying the entire Mandate system is illegal? Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan are illegitimate? THAT is quite a remarkable statement.

The Mandate system is legal only when the Mandate instrument and the Mandatory adhere to the principles of the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Mandate respectively.

 

[Billo_Really]

The Mandate did no such thing. The Mandate did not take land away from anyone. What the Mandate did was assign self-determination under national sovereignty of specific territories to those groups who lived in those territories.

The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Syrians and formed the State of Syria. Jewish people lived in Syria. Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Syria?

The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Lebanese and formed the State of Lebanon. Jewish people lived in Lebanon. Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Lebanon?

The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Jordanian people and formed the State of Jordan. Jewish people lived in Jordan. Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Jordan?

Just so, the Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Jewish people and formed the State of Israel, by right of the Jewish people's historical connection to the land. Arab Muslims lived in Israel.

Denial of the Jewish people to ALSO have rights to a national homeland, while giving those rights to others, is hypocritical.

The Mandate gave over 50% of the land, to 30% of the population.

 

[Billo_Really]

Arguing Arabs are not indigenous to Palestine, is as stupid as arguing gravity plays no role in plane crashes.

Really? In the context of the Arab Muslim conquest? Then you will have no trouble differentiating for me those who have lived in the land for thousands of years and those who were part of the Arab Muslim conquest. Feel free to use any of the common distinguishing factors such as: language, tribal affiliation, customs, legal systems, religious faith, modes of dress, traditional foods, holidays, celebrations of life events, place names, archeological finds, places of worship, myths and stories.

Keep in mind my purpose here is NOT to reject the rights of Arab Muslim Palestinians to a homeland within the disputed territories. I believe, absolutely, that they have that right. But only to counter the rejection of those same rights of the Jewish people who have a FAR better claim to being indigenous to the land by rights of each and every one of those distinguishing factors named above.

Here's the breakdown of land ownership in 1947...





Arabs are the overwhelming majority land owners.

As far as a "better claim", you cannot move into an area and automatically have more rights than the people already living there.

BTW, the territories are not "disputed", they're occupied.

 

[montelatici]

Arguing Arabs are not indigenous to Palestine, is as stupid as arguing gravity plays no role in plane crashes.

Really? In the context of the Arab Muslim conquest? Then you will have no trouble differentiating for me those who have lived in the land for thousands of years and those who were part of the Arab Muslim conquest. Feel free to use any of the common distinguishing factors such as: language, tribal affiliation, customs, legal systems, religious faith, modes of dress, traditional foods, holidays, celebrations of life events, place names, archeological finds, places of worship, myths and stories.

Keep in mind my purpose here is NOT to reject the rights of Arab Muslim Palestinians to a homeland within the disputed territories. I believe, absolutely, that they have that right. But only to counter the rejection of those same rights of the Jewish people who have a FAR better claim to being indigenous to the land by rights of each and every one of those distinguishing factors named above.

Given the inability of the Arabian desert to support large populations, the Arabian component of the "Muslim" armies was reckoned to be very small. Limited to the equivalent of the field grade officers and perhaps specialized mobile units e.g. cavalry and dromedary mounted units.

The bulk of the Muslim armies were recruited from the local Christian populations, pre-converts or converts. Muslim success in the Palestine Prima campaign was particularly reliant on local Christians that had issues with their Byzantine rulers. Of note is the fact that Jews that had not converted to Christianity had been barred from entering the area since Christianity became the Roman State religion.

The inhabitants of Palestine, prior to the European Zionist invasion, were and are the descendants of the same people that had always lived in the area although they may have practiced Canaanite, Samaritan, Roman and other religions, including Judaism in the past. The European Zionists had at best some (less than 50%) Middle Eastern heritage on the male line and hardly any on the female side, as modern genetic studies have confirmed. Southern Europeans in general have more Middle Eastern genetic background than the European Zionists that invaded Palestine.

"Ashkenazi Jewish women descended mostly from Italian converts, new study asserts"

Ashkenazi Jewish women descended mostly from Italian converts, new study asserts | Genetic Literacy Project

 

[montelatici]

And yes, legally, the Mandate did not have the authority to take land away from one group of people and give it to another group.

The Mandate did no such thing. The Mandate did not take land away from anyone. What the Mandate did was assign self-determination under national sovereignty of specific territories to those groups who lived in those territories.

The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Syrians and formed the State of Syria. Jewish people lived in Syria. Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Syria?

The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Lebanese and formed the State of Lebanon. Jewish people lived in Lebanon. Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Lebanon?

The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Jordanian people and formed the State of Jordan. Jewish people lived in Jordan. Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Jordan?

Just so, the Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Jewish people and formed the State of Israel, by right of the Jewish people's historical connection to the land. Arab Muslims lived in Israel.

Denial of the Jewish people to ALSO have rights to a national homeland, while giving those rights to others, is hypocritical.

Taking land from the native inhabitants and giving land in the Middle East to invading Europeans was the hypocrisy and in contravention of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Jews may or may not have a right to a national homeland, but if they do, but not at the expense of another group's home. Setting aside a part of Germany for the Jews may have been appropriate, for example.