Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, the native people of Palestine were Christians and Muslims. The European Jews began invading in the mid 1800s. Why do you continue to make things up?
Just the fact that you claim that muslims, who did not even exist as a people until 670 AD, were there before the jews is a sign you are fucking mentally ill. That you further claim, despite even Norman Finkelstein's work proving that there were many thousands of jews there throughout history, is another sign of your abject fucking stupidity. You're a fucking fraud, a whitebread bottom-feeding turd who thinks with some BS from fake scholars like ilan pappe is going to prove what everyone knows already, that the vast majority of arab muslims moved en masse into Israel from the 1800s forward.
No, the native people of Palestine were Christians and Muslims. The European Jews began invading in the mid 1800s. Why do you continue to make things up?
Just the fact that you claim that muslims, who did not even exist as a people until 670 AD, were there before the jews is a sign you are fucking mentally ill. That you further claim, despite even Norman Finkelstein's work proving that there were many thousands of jews there throughout history, is another sign of your abject fucking stupidity. You're a fucking fraud, a whitebread bottom-feeding turd who thinks with some BS from fake scholars like ilan pappe is going to prove what everyone knows already, that the vast majority of arab muslims moved en masse into Israel from the 1800s forward.
Of course the people of Palestine existed as a people before 670 AD. They were the Christians that inhabited Palestine ruled by the Roman (Byzantine) Empire, you idiot. The only people that moved to Palestine in the 1800 s were European Jews. The Christians and Muslims had always been there practicing other religions in the past.
Everything in response to the Arab Aggression ( declaration of war 1948 ) must be in accordance with the established laws governing the conduct of war.
Yikes, looks like someone is stuck in 1948, ( delusions again ? ) you did say "never" which would indicate something beyond a single date.
Of the 58 members of the United Nations at that time, the resolution was adopted by a majority of 35 countries, with 15 voting against and 8 abstaining. Significantly, all six Arab League countries then represented at the UN – Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen, all of which were parties to the conflict in question – voted against the resolution. The other significant group which voted against comprised the Communist bloc member countries: Byelorrusian SSR, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, Yugoslavia,[3] all of which had already recognised Israel as a de jure state. Israel was not a member of the United Nations at the time, and objected to many of the resolution's articles. The Palestinians were not directly consulted.
Oh and a declaration of Invasion and a declaration of war are the same thing.
No, the native people of Palestine were Christians and Muslims. The European Jews began invading in the mid 1800s. Why do you continue to make things up?
Just the fact that you claim that muslims, who did not even exist as a people until 670 AD, were there before the jews is a sign you are fucking mentally ill. That you further claim, despite even Norman Finkelstein's work proving that there were many thousands of jews there throughout history, is another sign of your abject fucking stupidity. You're a fucking fraud, a whitebread bottom-feeding turd who thinks with some BS from fake scholars like ilan pappe is going to prove what everyone knows already, that the vast majority of arab muslims moved en masse into Israel from the 1800s forward.
Of course the people of Palestine existed as a people before 670 AD. They were the Christians that inhabited Palestine ruled by the Roman (Byzantine) Empire, you idiot. The only people that moved to Palestine in the 1800 s were European Jews. The Christians and Muslims had always been there practicing other religions in the past.
Well at least he's in the delusions thread ;--)
Compared, for example, to the stable and mature political identities of the American, British, and French nations, the political identities of both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples are, in a way, in their adolescence.
Second, to facilitate that, they must undertake reconciliatory people-to-people social, economic, cultural, and security interactions to mitigate their resistance to change, which must begin, at a minimum, one year before the negotiations commence to create the psychological and political atmosphere to cultivate the trust necessary for substantive and successful peace negotiations...
Second, regardless of what the articles say - you can not take a nonl-citizen to the border of another sovereign nation, and let them go - that nation has no requirement to accept a non-citizen and in fact can close it's borders if it wishes.
More lies, go see what the Costa Ricans are doing with the cubans trying to get into the US, or the syrian arabs as they are moved across europe.
You are among the LAST people who should be discussing what is reality.
Actually...I'm beginning to think *you* are the one divorced from reality. Cubans are Cuban citizens. Syrians are Syrian citizens. There is a place to send them to where they hold citizenship.
And many British muslims are also Pakistani muslims and Palestinian muslims, holding papers for all 3 nations. This so they can go and fight British troops in places like Syria.
Are you saying they are citizens of other countries? If so - then yes, they can be deported. However, that is not what Rhodes was saying.
You didn't read the link.Now to get the rest of old Challenged stuff over here on the delusions thread. Right where it belongs.
Some of this stuff is priceless.
Quote
Never happened, the Arab league was never condemned by the UN for "aggression", the Arab League staged a legitimate intervention under the U.N. charter to restore peace and prevent the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population by the European Zionist colonists.
End Quote
Now I ask you, why would the about 60 nation muslim voting block out of 180 or so nations, fully 1/3, the largest voting block in the UN condemn a group of its own ?
Or when did the UN approve the Arab League declaration of war ?
And what ethnic cleansing ? had the Israeli's alluded to any such intentions ?
The guys just off his rocker completely. Or shall we say "delusional'
Still on the peyote I see. Seems our Bison "bovine excreter" here signally failed basic history 101.
In 1948 there were only 58 member states, of whom only 9 were "Muslim". United Nations member States - Growth in United Nations membership, 1945-present (Now I ask you, if the Muslim "voting bloc" was so powerful would it ever have allowed partition of Palestine in the first place?)
The Arab league did not declare a state of war Arab League Declarationon the Invasion of Palestine (May 1948) | Jewish Virtual Library
See: http://www.pdfarchive.info/pdf/P/Pa/Pappe_Ilan_-_The_Ethnic_Cleansing_of_Palestine.pdf
Yikes, looks like someone is stuck in 1948, ( delusions again ? ) you did say "never" which would indicate something beyond a single date.
But it does look like you've been cherrypicking from that bastion of accuracy Wiki
Quote
Of the 58 members of the United Nations at that time, the resolution was adopted by a majority of 35 countries, with 15 voting against and 8 abstaining. Significantly, all six Arab League countries then represented at the UN – Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen, all of which were parties to the conflict in question – voted against the resolution. The other significant group which voted against comprised the Communist bloc member countries: Byelorrusian SSR, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, Yugoslavia,[3] all of which had already recognised Israel as a de jure state. Israel was not a member of the United Nations at the time, and objected to many of the resolution's articles. The Palestinians were not directly consulted.
End Quote
Oh and a declaration of Invasion and a declaration of war are the same thing.
both result in the condition of war, or a fulfillment of the pragmatic theory. ;--) ( start digging Spiffy )
On the one hand we have the Hague which defines what types of documents constitute a declaration of war. You might want to do a little reading there to, I'd start with H3 but feel free ;--)
on the other we have the Geneva Conventions which state what constitutes a condition of war.
And since you seem so devoted to wikipedia lets just see what they have to say about what constitutes a declaration of war.
Quote
In modern public international law, a declaration of war entails the recognition between countries of a state of hostilities between these countries, and such declaration has acted to regulate the conduct between the military engagements between the forces of the respective countries. The primary multilateral treaties governing such declarations are the Hague Conventions.
End Quote
The Arab Nations "declaration of invasion" is a legal declaration that a state of war exists between Israel and the Arab League.
Arab League Declarationon the Invasion of Palestine (May 1948) | Jewish Virtual Library
The problem with this is that the Palestinians are the only ones who would be making concessions.An interesting analysis of the current state of non-peace. It's disturbing, because in order to overcome the status quo, deep changes in national psyche need to be looked at on both sides. It offers a very different analysis than what I usually see.
Delusions of Israelis and Palestinians Are Destroying the Peace Process
......There are certain psychological concepts that are relevant to understanding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; the concept of illusion is an essential one. In The Future of an Illusion, Freud offers the following definition: “…we call a belief an illusion when a wish-fulfillment is a prominent factor in its motivation, and in doing so we disregard its relations to reality, just as the illusion itself sets no store by verification.”
What is characteristic of illusions is that: 1) they are derived from deep human wishes, and 2) the belief is held (or would be held) in the absence of any compelling evidence, or good rational grounds, on its behalf.
It is impossible to deny that both Israelis and Palestinians are in the grip of very powerful illusions that only serve to prolong the conflict and prevent any mutual understanding. In particular, the belief shared by many Israelis that they have a biblical right to the land (including Judea and Samaria) and that God gave it to the Jews in perpetuity is undoubtedly an illusion of yesterday.
This belief is not affirmed because there is real evidence that God deemed it to be (although two Jewish kingdoms did exist — the first in the tenth century BCE and the second beginning in 539 BCE — on the same land), but because it satisfies a deep-seated psychological need for a God-given Jewish homeland.
The belief that by expanding the settlements Israel will augment its national security and maintain its hold on the entire land is an illusion of tomorrow, which generally ignores the presence of Muslims in the same land for more than 1,300 years.
It is important to note how these illusions sustain and reinforce one another, and constitute a psychological barrier that is much more impervious to critical reflection. Israel’s illusions have served to create the logic for occupation.
The Palestinians, for their part, are not without their own illusions. They also believe that God has reserved the land for them, and appeal to the fact that they had inhabited the land for centuries. From their perspective, the presence of the al-Aqsa Mosque, which was built in 705 AD in Jerusalem, attests to their historical and religious affinity to the Holy City.
They also cling to the idea that they will someday return to the land of their forbears, as they have and continue to insist on the right of return of the Palestinian refugees, even though this has become a virtual impossibility.
The Palestinians hold fast to their illusions of yesterday and tomorrow just as blindly and desperately as the Israelis, which leads to resistance to and fear of change. As such, unless both sides change course and accept each other’s affinity to the same land, specifically because it is religiously-based, the situation is bound to lead to a catastrophe.
This has contributed to making the Israeli-Palestinian conflict both chronic and intractable, as the various illusions are continuously and consciously nurtured by daily hostile and often violent encounters between the two sides.
In seeking to bridge concepts that could link between the domains of psychology and politics in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it could be proposed that a collective mutual resistance to change (both conscious and deliberate, and inner unconscious) protects a vulnerable identity.
Compared, for example, to the stable and mature political identities of the American, British, and French nations, the political identities of both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples are, in a way, in their adolescence.
Identities in this setting are more vulnerable, and the protagonists are naturally more defensive and resistant to change. By its very nature, the players must find it difficult (if not impossible) to articulate this publicly, as to do so is to admit to this vulnerability.
The concept of psychological resistance to change may well affect the political setting in general and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular; it is closely connected to perceptions at many levels and provides protection for vulnerable identity formation.
It is this mindset, strengthened by historical experiences, which transcends the more than seven decades since the Israeli-Palestinian conflict began. Individuals and groups, Israelis and Palestinians alike, have and continue to interpret the nature of the discord between them as “you versus me” in a prejudiced and selective way.
In turn, this has stifled any new information and enabled the continuing resistance to change, which could shed new light on the nature and substance of the conflict and help advance the peace process.
The concept of unconscious resistance to change in this setting links well to the view of perceptions driving the polarization in the conflict. Historical experience, which formulates perceptions, serves among other things to enhance the sense of identity of “who we really are,” a formative collective assumption that sits at the bedrock of both key players and drives functional and dysfunctional behavior.
In principle, such a mindset prevents either side from entertaining new ideas that might lead to compromises for a peaceful solution. The paradox here is that majorities on both sides do want and seek peace, knowing full well that this would require significant concessions, but are unable to reconcile the required concessions with imbedded perceptions that have precluded these compromises as a result of resistance to and fear of change.
Therefore, any framework for peace must include provisions that would dramatically increase the odds in favor of a solution. First, both sides need to commit to reaching an agreement based on a two-state solution out of the conviction that change, which translates to coexistence, is inevitable. Therefore, they ought to adjust to each other’s requirements, which of necessity requires them to make significant concessions.
Second, to facilitate that, they must undertake reconciliatory people-to-people social, economic, cultural, and security interactions to mitigate their resistance to change, which must begin, at a minimum, one year before the negotiations commence to create the psychological and political atmosphere to cultivate the trust necessary for substantive and successful peace negotiations...
The resumption of peace talks will go nowhere unless Israelis and Palestinians change their prejudiced perception and resistance to and fear of change, and finally come to the realization that their fate is intertwined and neither can live in peace and security without the other.
How would you sell that to the Palestinians?
No, the native people of Palestine were Christians and Muslims. The European Jews began invading in the mid 1800s. Why do you continue to make things up?
Just the fact that you claim that muslims, who did not even exist as a people until 670 AD, were there before the jews is a sign you are fucking mentally ill. That you further claim, despite even Norman Finkelstein's work proving that there were many thousands of jews there throughout history, is another sign of your abject fucking stupidity. You're a fucking fraud, a whitebread bottom-feeding turd who thinks with some BS from fake scholars like ilan pappe is going to prove what everyone knows already, that the vast majority of arab muslims moved en masse into Israel from the 1800s forward.
Of course the people of Palestine existed as a people before 670 AD. They were the Christians that inhabited Palestine ruled by the Roman (Byzantine) Empire, you idiot. The only people that moved to Palestine in the 1800 s were European Jews. The Christians and Muslims had always been there practicing other religions in the past.
No, the native people of Palestine were Christians and Muslims. The European Jews began invading in the mid 1800s. Why do you continue to make things up?
Just the fact that you claim that muslims, who did not even exist as a people until 670 AD, were there before the jews is a sign you are fucking mentally ill. That you further claim, despite even Norman Finkelstein's work proving that there were many thousands of jews there throughout history, is another sign of your abject fucking stupidity. You're a fucking fraud, a whitebread bottom-feeding turd who thinks with some BS from fake scholars like ilan pappe is going to prove what everyone knows already, that the vast majority of arab muslims moved en masse into Israel from the 1800s forward.
Of course the people of Palestine existed as a people before 670 AD. They were the Christians that inhabited Palestine ruled by the Roman (Byzantine) Empire, you idiot. The only people that moved to Palestine in the 1800 s were European Jews. The Christians and Muslims had always been there practicing other religions in the past.
Well at least he's in the delusions thread ;--)
Looks like the peyote is talking again, you really should lay off the stuff.
read the article again and these two points deserve comment:
Compared, for example, to the stable and mature political identities of the American, British, and French nations, the political identities of both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples are, in a way, in their adolescence.
This is a little bit oversimplistic. I'd hardly call American, British, and French nations stable and mature political identities, For us we've only just had a referrendum for Scotland to leave the Union, Scots, Welsh Irish and English cling to their seperate identities as much as Israelis and Palestinians do. Even the French have unresolved regional issues that sometimes bite, while in America there's the ongoing pressure cooker of White-Black-Hispanic-Native American tensions, none of us could be called "mature" in that respect.
Second, to facilitate that, they must undertake reconciliatory people-to-people social, economic, cultural, and security interactions to mitigate their resistance to change, which must begin, at a minimum, one year before the negotiations commence to create the psychological and political atmosphere to cultivate the trust necessary for substantive and successful peace negotiations...
The Zionist dream has always been a Jewish state for Jewish people only. Zionism is at heart an intolerant racist-supremacist ideology as bad as Wahabism in it's own way. I can't see them undertaking "reconciliatory people-to-people social, economic, cultural, and security interactions" anytime soon. they need to find amongst them an F.W. de Clerk before that ever has a chance to happen.
That is what the JVL preamble says but that is not what is stated in the actual document. That is just an Israeli say so thing.You didn't read the link.Now to get the rest of old Challenged stuff over here on the delusions thread. Right where it belongs.
Some of this stuff is priceless.
Quote
Never happened, the Arab league was never condemned by the UN for "aggression", the Arab League staged a legitimate intervention under the U.N. charter to restore peace and prevent the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population by the European Zionist colonists.
End Quote
Now I ask you, why would the about 60 nation muslim voting block out of 180 or so nations, fully 1/3, the largest voting block in the UN condemn a group of its own ?
Or when did the UN approve the Arab League declaration of war ?
And what ethnic cleansing ? had the Israeli's alluded to any such intentions ?
The guys just off his rocker completely. Or shall we say "delusional'
Still on the peyote I see. Seems our Bison "bovine excreter" here signally failed basic history 101.
In 1948 there were only 58 member states, of whom only 9 were "Muslim". United Nations member States - Growth in United Nations membership, 1945-present (Now I ask you, if the Muslim "voting bloc" was so powerful would it ever have allowed partition of Palestine in the first place?)
The Arab league did not declare a state of war Arab League Declarationon the Invasion of Palestine (May 1948) | Jewish Virtual Library
See: http://www.pdfarchive.info/pdf/P/Pa/Pappe_Ilan_-_The_Ethnic_Cleansing_of_Palestine.pdf
Yikes, looks like someone is stuck in 1948, ( delusions again ? ) you did say "never" which would indicate something beyond a single date.
But it does look like you've been cherrypicking from that bastion of accuracy Wiki
Quote
Of the 58 members of the United Nations at that time, the resolution was adopted by a majority of 35 countries, with 15 voting against and 8 abstaining. Significantly, all six Arab League countries then represented at the UN – Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen, all of which were parties to the conflict in question – voted against the resolution. The other significant group which voted against comprised the Communist bloc member countries: Byelorrusian SSR, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, Yugoslavia,[3] all of which had already recognised Israel as a de jure state. Israel was not a member of the United Nations at the time, and objected to many of the resolution's articles. The Palestinians were not directly consulted.
End Quote
Oh and a declaration of Invasion and a declaration of war are the same thing.
both result in the condition of war, or a fulfillment of the pragmatic theory. ;--) ( start digging Spiffy )
On the one hand we have the Hague which defines what types of documents constitute a declaration of war. You might want to do a little reading there to, I'd start with H3 but feel free ;--)
on the other we have the Geneva Conventions which state what constitutes a condition of war.
And since you seem so devoted to wikipedia lets just see what they have to say about what constitutes a declaration of war.
Quote
In modern public international law, a declaration of war entails the recognition between countries of a state of hostilities between these countries, and such declaration has acted to regulate the conduct between the military engagements between the forces of the respective countries. The primary multilateral treaties governing such declarations are the Hague Conventions.
End Quote
The Arab Nations "declaration of invasion" is a legal declaration that a state of war exists between Israel and the Arab League.
Arab League Declarationon the Invasion of Palestine (May 1948) | Jewish Virtual Library
Did you where it said they invaded Israel
" The State of Israel was declared independent on Friday evening May 14, 1948. That night, the regular forces of Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon invaded the nascent state. "
Did you read the pre may15 1948 arab reports where they threatened to wipe out the Jews and destroy any Jewish state in the name of allah.
Thanks for letting us know what the author is suffering from, although he, like a women's studies major, doesn't know that, of course. Anyway, when we see thousands and thousands of "Salam Now!" palistanians, marching in on the Abu Mazen's residence, then we'll seriously talk, of course.An interesting analysis of the current state of non-peace. It's disturbing, because in order to overcome the status quo, deep changes in national psyche need to be looked at on both sides. It offers a very different analysis than what I usually see....
"What is characteristic of illusions is that: 1) they are derived from deep human wishes, and 2) the belief is held (or would be held) in the absence of any compelling evidence, or good rational grounds, on its behalf." ... .
Everything in response to the Arab Aggression ( declaration of war 1948 ) must be in accordance with the established laws governing the conduct of war.
My response "never happened" was to the above comment of yours.
Yikes, looks like someone is stuck in 1948, ( delusions again ? ) you did say "never" which would indicate something beyond a single date.
Which makes this comment a little bit disingenuous.
Of the 58 members of the United Nations at that time, the resolution was adopted by a majority of 35 countries, with 15 voting against and 8 abstaining. Significantly, all six Arab League countries then represented at the UN – Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen, all of which were parties to the conflict in question – voted against the resolution. The other significant group which voted against comprised the Communist bloc member countries: Byelorrusian SSR, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, Yugoslavia,[3] all of which had already recognised Israel as a de jure state. Israel was not a member of the United Nations at the time, and objected to many of the resolution's articles. The Palestinians were not directly consulted.
This relates to GA resolution 194 which had nothing to do with the Arab League declaration of May 1948
Oh and a declaration of Invasion and a declaration of war are the same thing.
That's what the Jewish Vitual Encyclopedia calls it, not what it actually was, an intervention in an ongoing conflict to restore peace to the region as allowed in the U.N. Charter. See the original document:
ODS HOME PAGE
Seems the peyote is scambling your brain; that's why you keep making things up.
.
Good read except for your mindless babble at the end.Everything in response to the Arab Aggression ( declaration of war 1948 ) must be in accordance with the established laws governing the conduct of war.
My response "never happened" was to the above comment of yours.
Yikes, looks like someone is stuck in 1948, ( delusions again ? ) you did say "never" which would indicate something beyond a single date.
Which makes this comment a little bit disingenuous.
Of the 58 members of the United Nations at that time, the resolution was adopted by a majority of 35 countries, with 15 voting against and 8 abstaining. Significantly, all six Arab League countries then represented at the UN – Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen, all of which were parties to the conflict in question – voted against the resolution. The other significant group which voted against comprised the Communist bloc member countries: Byelorrusian SSR, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukrainian SSR, USSR, Yugoslavia,[3] all of which had already recognised Israel as a de jure state. Israel was not a member of the United Nations at the time, and objected to many of the resolution's articles. The Palestinians were not directly consulted.
This relates to GA resolution 194 which had nothing to do with the Arab League declaration of May 1948
Oh and a declaration of Invasion and a declaration of war are the same thing.
That's what the Jewish Vitual Encyclopedia calls it, not what it actually was, an intervention in an ongoing conflict to restore peace to the region as allowed in the U.N. Charter. See the original document:
ODS HOME PAGE
Seems the peyote is scambling your brain; that's why you keep making things up.
.
You're daft if you think this isn't a declaration of war.
I'f you'd bothered to read any of my previous ( thats OK I don't exactly spend a lot of time on your posts either ) you'd have known that any declaration which announces actions synonymous with those considered acts of war is a declaration of war. Its irrelevant if the document actually uses the term war.
Since your racism precludes your consideration of any source with Judaic overtones lets just look at the original document as it appears in the UN files
Quote
daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/DER/NL4/829/25/PDF/NL482925.pdf
Cablegram from the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States to the Secretary-General of the United Nations (1948)
On the occasion of the intervention of Arab States in Palestine to restore law and order and to prevent disturbances prevailing in Palestine from spreading into their territories and to check further bloodshed, I have the honour to request your Excellency to bring following statement before General Assembly and Security Council.
1. Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire subject to its rule of law and enjoying full representation in its parliament, the great majority of its population was composed of Arabs with a small minority of Jews enjoying all rights alike with all the remaining citizens and liable only to such charges as all others were. Never were they as minority the subject of any discrimination on account of their creed. Holy Places were protected and accessible to all without distinction.
2. The Arabs have constantly been seeking their freedom and independence; when the Second World War broke out and the Allies declared that they were fighting to restore freedom to the nations the Arabs sided with the Allies and placed all their means at their disposal and in fact fought with them for the realization of their national aspirations and their independence. Great Britain took upon herself the recognition of the independence of the Arab countries in Asia including Palestine. The Arabs’ effort was felt and duly appreciated in winning victory.
3. Great Britain issued a declaration in 1917 in which expression was made of its sympathy with the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine. When this was brought to the knowledge of the Arabs they did not fail to express their resentment and opposition to such expression of policy and when they protested formally to Great Britain the latter made the necessary reassurances with a confirmation of the view that such a declaration did not affect in any degree their rights nor their freedom and independence, and that the said declaration did not prejudice the political position of the Arabs of Palestine notwithstanding the illegality of the said declaration. The British Government’s interpretation of it was that it meant no more than the establishment of a spiritual abode for the Jews in Palestine without there being any ulterior political motives such as the creation of a Jewish State, that being further the expressed views of the Jewish leaders at the time.
4. When the war ended Great Britain did not fulfil its pledges. Instead Palestine was placed under a Mandate entrusted to Great Britain. The terms of the Mandate provided for the safeguarding of the interests of the inhabitants of Palestine and their preparation for eventual independence to which they were entitled by virtue of the Covenant of the League of Nations which admitted that the inhabitants of Palestine were fit for it.
5. Great Britain however placed Palestine in such a position as made it possible for the Jews to flood the country with waves of immigrants and factually helped their establishment on the soil despite the saturation of the land with its population which did exceed the absorptive capacity of the country economically and otherwise, thereby neglecting the provided for interests and the rights of its lawful inhabitants. The Arabs used all means at all times to express their deep concern and anxiety at such a policy which they felt was undermining their future and their very existence. But at all such times they were met with utter disregard and harsh treatment such as jail, exile, etc.
6. And whereas Palestine is an Arab country falling in the heart of the Arab countries and attached to the Arab world with all bonds spiritual, historical, economical and strategical, the Arab States as well as Eastern countries, whether through their people or governments, could not but concern and interest themselves with the fate of Palestine. This is why they took upon themselves the task of handling its case before the international institutions generally and particularly before Great Britain, insisting upon a solution for the problem based upon undertaking given to them and upon democratic principles. A round-table conference was held early in 1939 in London in which the Arab States took part asking for the safeguarding of the independence of Arab Palestine as a whole. That conference resulted in the issue of the well-known White Paper in which Great Britain defined its policy towards Palestine, admitting its right to independence while laying down at the same time certain provisions for the exercise of such independence. Great Britain did therein further declare that its obligations regarding the establishment of the Jewish National Home have been completely fulfilled as the said National Home had been established. But unfortunately the underlying policy of the White Paper was not carried out, which led to an increasingly bad situation and, in fact, resulted in complete prejudice and disregard to Arab interests.
7. During the time that the Second World War was raging the respective Governments of the Arab States began to co-ordinate their views and actions for the useful purpose of better securing co-operation regarding not only their present and future but for playing their part in the establishment of lasting world-wide peace. The problem of Palestine did not at any time during their mutual consultations fail to absorb its due share of attention and interest. It was a result of those consultations that then emerged the present Arab League as instrument for the realization of their own peace, security and welfare. The Arab League Charter declared that Palestine had become an independent country since its separation from the Ottoman Empire, but that all the appertaining external rights and privileges attendant upon formal independence had to be subdued temporarily for reasons beyond the will of its people. It was a happy coincidence which gave rise to the hopes of the Arab States then that at that time the United Nations was brought to existence soon after. And accordingly the Arab States unhesitatingly participated in its creation and membership out of deep belief in that institution, its ideals, and high aims.
8. Since then the Arab League, through its member States, unceasingly endeavoured by all its means, whether with the Mandatory or with the United Nations, to find a fair and just solution for the problem of Palestine, based on democratic principles and consistent with the provisions of the League of Nations Covenant as well as of the United Nations Charter, a solution which would be lasting and would ensure peace and security in the land leading to prosperity, but such solution invariably conflicted with opposition from Zionists and with their demands as they then started to openly declare their insistence upon a Jewish State and in fact bent upon full preparations with arms and fortifications to impose their own solution by force.
9. When the General Assembly made its recommendations on 29 November 1947 for the solution of the Palestine problem on the basis of partition providing for the establishment of two States, one Arab and one Jewish, with an international regime of trusteeship for the City of Jerusalem, the Arab States expressed the warning that such a solution was prejudicial to the rights of the Arab inhabitants of Palestine to independence and was contradictory to democratic principles and to the League of Nations as well as the United Nations Charter. The Arabs then rejected such a scheme declaring that it was not susceptible of execution by peaceful means and that its imposition by force constituted a threat to peace and security in this area.
The apprehensions of the Arab States proved to be well founded as the disturbances of which they had warned soon swept the country, and armed conflict took place between its two peoples who started to combat against each other and shed each other’s blood. Consequently, the United Nations realized the mistake upon which the recommendation of partition was made and turned to search for an outlet.
10. Now that the Mandate over Palestine has come to an end, leaving no legally constituted authority behind in order to administer law and order in the country and afford the necessary and adequate protection to life and property, the Arab States declare as follows:
(a) The right to set up a Government in Palestine pertains to its inhabitants under the principles of self-determination recognized by the Covenant of the League of Nations as well as the United Nations Charter;
(b) Peace and order have been completely upset in Palestine, and, in consequence of Jewish aggression, approximately over a quarter of a million of the Arab population have been compelled to leave their homes and emigrate to neighbouring Arab countries. The prevailing events in Palestine exposed the concealed aggressive intentions of the Zionists and their imperialistic motives, as clearly shown in their acts committed upon those peaceful Arabs and villagers of Deer Yasheen, Tiberias, and other places, as well as by their encroachment upon the building and bodies of the inviolable consular codes, manifested by their attack upon the Consulate in Jerusalem.
(c) The Mandatory has already announced that on the termination of the Mandate it will no longer be responsible for the maintenance of law and order in Palestine except in the camps and areas actually occupied by its forces, and only to the extent necessary for the security of those forces and their withdrawal. This leaves Palestine absolutely without any administrative authority entitled to maintain, and capable of maintaining, a machinery of administration of the country adequate for the purpose of ensuring due protection of life and property. There is further the threat that this lawlessness may spread to the neighbouring Arab States where feeling is already very tense on account of the prevailing conditions in Palestine. The respective members of the Arab League, and as Members of the United Nations at the same time, feel gravely perturbed and deeply concerned over this situation.
(d) It was the sincere wish of the Arab States that the United Nations might succeed in arriving at a fair and just solution of the Palestine problem, thus establishing a lasting peace for the country under the precepts of the democratic principles and in conformity with the Covenant of the League of Nations and the United Nations Charter.
(e) They are responsible in any … by virtue of their responsibility as members of the Arab League which is a regional organization within the meaning of Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations. The recent disturbances in Palestine further constitute a serious and direct threat to peace and security within the territories of the Arab States themselves. For these reasons, and considering that the security of Palestine is a sacred trust for them, and out of anxiousness to check the further deterioration of the prevailing conditions and to prevent the spread of disorder and lawlessness into the neighbouring Arab lands, and in order to fill the vacuum created by the termination of the Mandate and the failure to replace it by any legally constituted authority, the Arab Governments find themselves compelled to intervene for the sole purpose of restoring peace and security and establishing law and order in Palestine.
The Arab States recognize that the independence and sovereignty of Palestine which was so far subject to the British Mandate has now, with the termination of the Mandate, become established in fact, and maintain that the lawful inhabitants of Palestine are alone competent and entitled to set up an administration in Palestine for the discharge of all governmental functions without any external interference. As soon as that stage is reached the intervention of the Arab States, which is confined to the restoration of peace and establishment of law and order, shall be put an end to, and the sovereign State of Palestine will be competent in co-operation with the other States members of the Arab League, to take every step for the promotion of the welfare and security of its peoples and territory.
The Governments of the Arab States hereby confirm at this stage the view that had been repeatedly declared by them on previous occasions, such as the London Conference and before the United Nations mainly, the only fair and just solution to the problem of Palestine is the creation of United State of Palestine based upon the democratic principles which will enable all its inhabitants to enjoy equality before the law, and which would guarantee to all minorities the safeguards provided for in all democratic constitutional States affording at the same time full protection and free access to Holy Places. The Arab States emphatically and repeatedly declare that their intervention in Palestine has been prompted solely by the considerations and for the aims set out above and that they are not inspired by any other motive whatsoever. They are, therefore, confident that their action will receive the support of the United Nations as tending to further the aims and ideals of the United Nations as set out in its Charter.
Abdul Razek Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the League of Arab States UN Doc. S/745, reprinted in 3 UN SCOR, Supp. for May 1948, at 83-88
End Quote
The declaration never mentioned that the combined armies of five Arab League nations were poised to descend on the fledgling Israel on behalf of the already waring Arabs in the former mandate aree, or that Israel had been recognized by the UN thus making the statement highlighted in blue just more Arab hasbara.
The simple fact is the declaration is a rather repetitive defense of the military action which resulted in both Egypt and Jordan illegally occupying areas of the former mandate.
Now I realize comprehension isn't your strong suit Challenged but if you focus, eventually you might grasp at leasts some of the concepts involved
In view of which all that arab babble about being poor 'n robbed is, of course, a pure and unadulterated drivel.There is no evidence that Israel was ever invaded and the Arab states did not mention invading Israel.
That was funny."......in consequence of Jewish aggression, approximately over a quarter of a million of the Arab population have been compelled to leave their homes and emigrate to neighbouring Arab countries. The prevailing events in Palestine exposed the concealed aggressive intentions of the Zionists and their imperialistic motives, as clearly shown in their acts committed upon those peaceful Arabs and villagers of Deer Yasheen, Tiberias, and other places, as well as by their encroachment upon the building and bodies of the inviolable consular codes, manifested by their attack upon the Consulate in Jerusalem...."
That was funny."......in consequence of Jewish aggression, approximately over a quarter of a million of the Arab population have been compelled to leave their homes and emigrate to neighbouring Arab countries. The prevailing events in Palestine exposed the concealed aggressive intentions of the Zionists and their imperialistic motives, as clearly shown in their acts committed upon those peaceful Arabs and villagers of Deer Yasheen, Tiberias, and other places, as well as by their encroachment upon the building and bodies of the inviolable consular codes, manifested by their attack upon the Consulate in Jerusalem...."
