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

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You cannot change a political/governmental system when your outside the system or don't participate. The Arab Palestinians wanted to play by their rules; marching to a different drummer.

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.

(COMMENT)

Trying to change things within the system is preferable to armed conflict. For several centuries, the world had been using diplomatic efforts to solve issues of contention; before they considered war.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

An occupied population is not "within" the system. In the past British refused to recognize any of the Christian-Muslim Associations as official representatives of the Palestinian people because they would not cooperate with the plan to colonize Palestine. So, the Palestinians never had a voice.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You cannot change a political/governmental system when your outside the system or don't participate. The Arab Palestinians wanted to play by their rules; marching to a different drummer.

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.

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.

(COMMENT)

Trying to change things within the system is preferable to armed conflict. For several centuries, the world had been using diplomatic efforts to solve issues of contention; before they considered war.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians had to give up their rights before they were allowed to participate in the colonial project. A position of no rights is not good in political participation.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

It is not the British "which refused to recognize" - but - the Arab "which rejected representation."

An occupied population is not "within" the system. In the past British refused to recognize any of the Christian-Muslim Associations as official representatives of the Palestinian people because they would not cooperate with the plan to colonize Palestine. So, the Palestinians never had a voice.

(COMMENT)

The Arab-Palestinian always has an excuse as to why they refused to participate or rejected political opportunities. When they don't get their way, they cry a little-bit and pick-up their marbles and leave; only to start a fight.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What??

P F Tinmore, et al,

You cannot change a political/governmental system when your outside the system or don't participate. The Arab Palestinians wanted to play by their rules; marching to a different drummer.

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.

(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.

(COMMENT)

Trying to change things within the system is preferable to armed conflict. For several centuries, the world had been using diplomatic efforts to solve issues of contention; before they considered war.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians had to give up their rights before they were allowed to participate in the colonial project. A position of no rights is not good in political participation.

(COMMENT)

Can you reference something that indicated the Mandatory wanted the Arab-Palestinian to give-up their civil and religious rights?

Sorry, I just never heard of such a demand --- just to be included at the same level as the Jewish Agency. That would be interesting. And, if true, a deviation from the Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What??

P F Tinmore, et al,

You cannot change a political/governmental system when your outside the system or don't participate. The Arab Palestinians wanted to play by their rules; marching to a different drummer.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Be more specific.

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.

(COMMENT)

Trying to change things within the system is preferable to armed conflict. For several centuries, the world had been using diplomatic efforts to solve issues of contention; before they considered war.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians had to give up their rights before they were allowed to participate in the colonial project. A position of no rights is not good in political participation.

(COMMENT)

Can you reference something that indicated the Mandatory wanted the Arab-Palestinian to give-up their civil and religious rights?

Sorry, I just never heard of such a demand --- just to be included at the same level as the Jewish Agency. That would be interesting. And, if true, a deviation from the Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

Sorry, I just never heard of such a demand​

Of course you haven't. Israeli propaganda will not tell you such a thing.

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

It is not the British "which refused to recognize" - but - the Arab "which rejected representation."

An occupied population is not "within" the system. In the past British refused to recognize any of the Christian-Muslim Associations as official representatives of the Palestinian people because they would not cooperate with the plan to colonize Palestine. So, the Palestinians never had a voice.

(COMMENT)

The Arab-Palestinian always has an excuse as to why they refused to participate or rejected political opportunities. When they don't get their way, they cry a little-bit and pick-up their marbles and leave; only to start a fight.

Most Respectfully,
R

Now you are just being silly with your childish analogies and are ignorant of the facts. From the beginning, the British refused to accept the Muslim-Christian Associations as representatives. It began in the first response by Churchill to the Palestinian Delegation's letter to the Colonial Office in 1922. The British excuse was while the accepted the Jewish Agency's right to represent the Zionists, the machinery of representation as utilized by the Christians and Muslims, was not acceptable to the British. It was clearly a game the British were playing to prevent the native people from having a voice, because their voice would be a source of resistance to the colonization of Palestine by the Europeans.

"2. I am to point out in the first place that, while your Delegation is recognised by Mr. Churchill as representing a large section of the Moslem and Christian inhabitants of Palestine, and while the Secretary of State is anxious to discuss his present proposals informally with recognised representatives, such as yourselves, of any important section of the community, he is not in a position to negotiate officially with you or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine...."

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)

So how can it be politely said that you are full of crap? Saying you are mistaken is an understatement.

 

[Shusha]

Arabs are the overwhelming majority land owners.

The ethnicity of land owners does not confer sovereignty over territory. Is San Francisco the sovereign territory of China? Is a portion of Morocco the sovereign territory of Israel because Jews lived there in large numbers? Is Syria part of Palestine because a large number of Palestinians live there? Are all the "settlements" Israeli territory because the residents are Jewish?

The Mandate gave a portion of the Mandate territory to the Jewish people in recognition of their historical national homeland, just as the Mandate gave other portions to other peoples. Why so many people seem to have a problem with the Jewish people having a homeland is beyond me.

 

[montelatici]

Arabs are the overwhelming majority land owners.

The ethnicity of land owners does not confer sovereignty over territory. Is San Francisco the sovereign territory of China? Is a portion of Morocco the sovereign territory of Israel because Jews lived there in large numbers? Is Syria part of Palestine because a large number of Palestinians live there? Are all the "settlements" Israeli territory because the residents are Jewish?

The Mandate gave a portion of the Mandate territory to the Jewish people in recognition of their historical national homeland, just as the Mandate gave other portions to other peoples. Why so many people seem to have a problem with the Jewish people having a homeland is beyond me.

The Mandate, as implemented, was illegal. Taking land from the native inhabitants to give it to European colonists, whatever their religion was, to create a state for said Europeans, ran contrary to the basic tenets of the Covenant of the League of Nations, under whose authority the Mandates were created. The Mandates were created for the benefit of the inhabitants of the territories of the former Axis powers. 95% of the native inhabitants of Palestine were Muslims and Christians in 1921. The Jews were European settlers. Instead of benefiting from the Mandate, the native inhabitants were dispossessed.

 

[Shusha]

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.

So, its okay to re-constitute a homeland for the Jewish people where Germans live and remove sovereign territory from Germany, but its not okay to re-constitute a homeland for the Jewish people on their actual ancestral territorial homeland where Palestinians live?

How does that make sense?

 

[Shusha]

The Mandate, as implemented, was illegal. Taking land from the native inhabitants to give it to European colonists, whatever their religion was, to create a state for said Europeans, ran contrary to the basic tenets of the Covenant of the League of Nations, under whose authority the Mandates were created. The Mandates were created for the benefit of the inhabitants of the territories of the former Axis powers. 95% of the native inhabitants of Palestine were Muslims and Christians in 1921. The Jews were European settlers. Instead of benefiting from the Mandate, the native inhabitants were dispossessed.

The Mandates were created for the benefit of the inhabitants of the territories. One of those groups of inhabitants were the Jewish people. It really is that simple. There is no legal or moral reason whatsoever that the Jewish people should be the only group of inhabitants who must be prevented from having a national self-determination.

 

[montelatici]

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.

So, its okay to re-constitute a homeland for the Jewish people where Germans live and remove sovereign territory from Germany, but its not okay to re-constitute a homeland for the Jewish people on their actual ancestral territorial homeland where Palestinians live?

How does that make sense?

Well, the Germans caused the Holocaust, why should the native Palestinians have been dispossessed to make room for Europeans of a particular religion? The European Jews had/have less Middle Eastern ancestry than most southern Europeans. They were genetically Europeans that practiced Judaism. The Palestinians are descendants of the people that had always lived in the Middle East.

 

[Shusha]

Well, the Germans caused the Holocaust, why should the native Palestinians have been dispossessed to make room for Europeans of a particular religion?

You can't be dispossessed of something you never had. There has never been a national, political entity for Palestinian self-determination. (Which is not to say there shouldn't be now -- there should). (Arab Muslim) Palestinians never had sovereignty over territory and therefore can't be dispossessed of sovereignty. So your claim to dispossession is actually a claim that Arab Muslims have held sovereignty over the territory in the past and thus Arab Muslims (and only Arab Muslims) can have sovereignty over the land in the present and future.

While asserting this, you deny that the Jewish people, who actually have had a national, political entity for self-determination and who actually were forceably dispossessed of their homeland, have no rights to re-constitute that homeland. The reason you give for this is that the Jewish people have lost their ethnicity in the dispossession and have become Europeans. Does that mean you also agree that those Palestinians who no longer live in the territories in question have lost their ethnicity in the conflict and are now Jordanians or Syrians with no rights to self-determination as Palestinians? Does ethnic cleansing lead to a loss of rights and a ineligibility to sovereignty?

The European Jews had/have less Middle Eastern ancestry than most southern Europeans.

Using genetics as a basis for sovereignty or self-determination, or worse -- to REMOVE rights to sovereignty and self-determination smacks of a racist doctrine along the lines of Nazism's racial purity. Disgusting.

 

[montelatici]

Well, the Germans caused the Holocaust, why should the native Palestinians have been dispossessed to make room for Europeans of a particular religion?

You can't be dispossessed of something you never had. There has never been a national, political entity for Palestinian self-determination. (Which is not to say there shouldn't be now -- there should). (Arab Muslim) Palestinians never had sovereignty over territory and therefore can't be dispossessed of sovereignty. So your claim to dispossession is actually a claim that Arab Muslims have held sovereignty over the territory in the past and thus Arab Muslims (and only Arab Muslims) can have sovereignty over the land in the present and future.

While asserting this, you deny that the Jewish people, who actually have had a national, political entity for self-determination and who actually were forceably dispossessed of their homeland, have no rights to re-constitute that homeland. The reason you give for this is that the Jewish people have lost their ethnicity in the dispossession and have become Europeans. Does that mean you also agree that those Palestinians who no longer live in the territories in question have lost their ethnicity in the conflict and are now Jordanians or Syrians with no rights to self-determination as Palestinians? Does ethnic cleansing lead to a loss of rights and a ineligibility to sovereignty?

The European Jews had/have less Middle Eastern ancestry than most southern Europeans.

Using genetics as a basis for sovereignty or self-determination, or worse -- to REMOVE rights to sovereignty and self-determination smacks of a racist doctrine along the lines of Nazism's racial purity. Disgusting.

Well of course the native inhabitants "had" the land they land they owned and lived on. The Europeans that colonized Palestine never had sovereignty over Palestine. They were Europeans. None had set foot in Palestine.

You are all over the place, first you claim that Europeans claiming an ethnicity had the right to remove the native inhabitants because of this ethnicity, then you claim genetics smacks of Nazism.

It was simply a group of Europeans with the help of other Europeans taking land from the native inhabitants as the last European colonial project. That's what happened. Anything else is a bunch of bullshit.

 

[Shusha]

first you claim that Europeans claiming an ethnicity had the right to remove the native inhabitants because of this ethnicity

Where did I claim that? No one is being removed from territory nor am I calling for that. What I am claiming is that BOTH groups of native inhabitants have a right to sovereignty. You, on the other hand, are claiming that only ONE group of native inhabitants have a right to sovereignty.

 

[montelatici]

How could the European Jews have been native inhabitants when they were born and lived in Europe?

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

I guess you did not read what I posted.

It is not the British "which refused to recognize" - but - the Arab "which rejected representation."​

Now you are just being silly with your childish analogies and are ignorant of the facts. From the beginning, the British refused to accept the Muslim-Christian Associations as representatives.

So how can it be politely said that you are full of crap? Saying you are mistaken is an understatement.

(COMMENT)

I think we are seeing the events from different perspective. I view the First Attempt this way:

[/B]Political History of Palestine under British Administration]

The First Attempt to Create Self-Governing Institutions, 1922-23.
​

16. Shortly after the establishment of the civil administration, the High commissioner had formed a nominated Advisory Council, consisting of 10 British officials and 10 Palestinians (4 Moslem Arabs, 3 Christian Arabs and 3 Jews). Two years later, in August, 1922, an order-in-Council was issued providing for the creation of a Legislative Council. This body was to consist of the High commissioner and 22 other members, 10 official and 12 elected; of the elected members, 8 were to be Moslems, 2 Christians and 2 Jews.

17. A draft of the Order-in-Council had previously been communicated to a Palestine Arab delegation in London. The Delegation, while making various detailed criticisms of the proposals, at the same time declined to enter into discussions involving acceptance of the Balfour Declaration. They maintained that the proposals for a Legislative council were not in conformity with paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, according to which -

• 
  “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 Arab Delegation consequently declared that “no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable”.*

18. Replying to these observations, the Colonial Officer pointed out that paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the League Covenant had been interpreted by the Principal Allied Powers in the unratified Treaty of Sevres, where Syria and Iraq, but not Palestine, were explicitly said to have been “provisionally recognised” as independent States.

• 
  “There is no question,” the Colonial Officer continued, “of treating the people of Palestine as less advanced than their neighbours in Iraq and Syria; the position is that His Majesty’s Government are bound by a pledge which is antecedent to the Covenant of the League of Nations, and they cannot allow a constitutional position to develop in a country for which they have accepted responsibility to the Principal Allied Powers, which may make it impracticable to carry into effect a solemn undertaking given by themselves and their Allies…..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. It follows that the principal Allied Powers, concerned as they were to ensure the fulfilment of a policy adopted before the Covenant was drafted, were ell advised in applying to Palestine a somewhat different interpretation of Paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the covenant than was applied to the neighbouring countries of Iraq and Syria.”

[/B]Political History of Palestine under British Administration]
20. Despite the unfavourable reception given by the Arabs to the proposal for a Legislative Council, elections were held early in 1923. The Arab leaders organised a boycott of the primary elections, with the result that only 107 Moslem secondary electors were chosen out of a possible total of 663, and only 19 Christians out of 59. The elections had failed in their object of producing an accurate reflection of the opinion of the whole population. They were therefore annulled by an amending Order-in-Council of May , 1923, under which the High Commissioner was temporarily to retain a nominated Advisory Council.

21. The High Commissioner wishing the Advisory Council to approximate as closely as possible to the abortive Legislative council, proposed to reconstitute it on the lines suggested for the latter body, that is to say with 10 officials and 8 Moslem, 2 Christians and 2 Jewish Palestinians. But of the 10 Arabs whom he nominated, 7 withdrew their acceptance under political pressure. The High Commissioner did not wish to replace them with men of less standing. It thus proved impossible to constitute a representative Advisory Council.

22. 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.
SOURCE: A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947

You may challenge me all your want; but I think you are a bit myopic in your view. But you are intitled to your interpretation of history.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

How could the European Jews have been native inhabitants when they were born and lived in Europe?

The same way a man born in Egypt can become the leader of the Palestinian people?

Let's just leave aside the Jewish people in the diaspora for the moment. There were communities of Jewish people living in Palestine at the end of WWI. Do those communities have the right, conceptually, to self-determination? Why or why not?

 

[P F Tinmore]

How could the European Jews have been native inhabitants when they were born and lived in Europe?

The same way a man born in Egypt can become the leader of the Palestinian people?

Let's just leave aside the Jewish people in the diaspora for the moment. There were communities of Jewish people living in Palestine at the end of WWI. Do those communities have the right, conceptually, to self-determination? Why or why not?

They did. They became Palestinian citizens with equal rights to their Muslim and Christian brothers.

 

[montelatici]

The Mandate, as implemented, was illegal. Taking land from the native inhabitants to give it to European colonists, whatever their religion was, to create a state for said Europeans, ran contrary to the basic tenets of the Covenant of the League of Nations, under whose authority the Mandates were created. The Mandates were created for the benefit of the inhabitants of the territories of the former Axis powers. 95% of the native inhabitants of Palestine were Muslims and Christians in 1921. The Jews were European settlers. Instead of benefiting from the Mandate, the native inhabitants were dispossessed.

The Mandates were created for the benefit of the inhabitants of the territories. One of those groups of inhabitants were the Jewish people. It really is that simple. There is no legal or moral reason whatsoever that the Jewish people should be the only group of inhabitants who must be prevented from having a national self-determination.

There were hardly any Jews in the area, less than 5% of the population.. Of the few Jews that were there most were recent arrivals from Europe. Not native inhabitants.There was no legal or moral reason that 5% of the population most of which was not native to the area should be given a separate state while 95% of the population should have been evicted and dispossessed.