I will not Bow!

[Phoenall]

Compensation for land seized.


Take the money, once it's offered, sign a quit-claim, and leave.[/SIZE]

Compensation ($30 bil) was offered 14 years ago and despite the willingness of the vast majority of Palestinians to accept it and move on, Arafat slinked away from the negotiations and started his 2nd and final Intifada.
How did all that work out for those hapless "refugees?"

Nobody ever accused the Palestinians of being the brightest crayons in the box.

They never miss a chance to miss a chance

 

[Phoenall]

Originally posted by SAYIT
Compensation ($30 bil) was offered 14 years ago and despite the willingness of the vast majority of Palestinians to accept it and move on.

How clueless a human being have to be to seriously believe and have the courage to post the statement in bold on an Internet forum?

At lest 92% of the palestinian people consider the ROR a non-negotiable point in any peace agreement.

God knows there is no shortage of "personal opinions" regarding this land conflict, but this is not an opinion, this is a fact that is not even open for debate.

Please, notice that even Kondor in his reply chose to ignore the main message of the post (it was Arafat's fault) and correctly put the "blame" where it rightly belong: on the shoulders of the palestinian people.

Sayit's insane statement, completely divorced from reality was too much cheap zionist propaganda EVEN FOR A FANATICAL ZIONIST LIKE KONDOR.

Maybe you should take a look the right of return again and see what it really says. It is not a simple matter of the muslims moving to land they never owned, but a many pronged fork with compensation being one option

 

[Phoenall]

I would love Jose to explain how European Jews who immigrated to Mandatory Palestine were invaders.
Specially considering the fact that the British Mandate encouraged immigration
Specially considering the fact that the British FACILITATED Jewish immigration

But like I've said many times, if pro Palestinians abandon their 'Jewish invader' crap, the. Their whole Palestinian propaganda agenda is finished.

It was actually a pre-requisite of the Mandate to allow for the migration of Jews to Palestine, and they were even allocated what became trans Jordan in the initial discussions regarding the partitioning of the mandate. ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATRED in British politics re wrote the mandate and gave the land to the Hashemites. That is over 78% of the land destined for a Jewish home was taken away by the British ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATERS.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you've again misread the script.

More smoke, Rocco?

The Treaty of Sevres was never ratified. Your other two links only apply to Turkey's new borders. They have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.


Key words: "in trusteeship managed by the Council-League of Nations"

A trusteeship is the manager of another's property. And whose property was the mandate managing?

​

Indeed.

​

And as you have been told the state was Britain under the mandate, it could not have been Palestine as it had no governing body of its own


The various groups that lived in the area that did not yet have any government. These groups included Jews, Christians, arab nomads and itinerant arab workers.

As explained the only outside influence on the arabs was that of the arab league.

They had the chance of national independence and sovereignty and turned it down until 1988 when they saw they were losing everything.

And if they had no homes then were do they go

Which they have and still they attack their neighbours, showing that they are not capable of any form of self determination.

Actually, there was a Government and according to the 1922 British census resident Muslims and Christians were over 80% and Jews about 12% of the population.

"The 1922 census of Palestine was the first census carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine, on 23 October 1922.[1]
The reported population was 757,182, including the military and persons of foreign nationality. The division into religious groups was 590,390 Muslims, 83,694 Jews, 73,024 Christians, 7,028 Druze, 808 Sikhs, 265 Bahais, 156 Metawalis, and 163 Samaritans.[2]"

1922 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the 1931 British census the overall population increased 36.8% but the Jewish population increased by 108.4% through immigration. But Muslims and Christians remained close to 80% of the population as late as 1931.

"The total population reported was 1,035,821 (1,033,314 excluding the numbers of H.M. Forces)[2] – an increase of 36.8% since 1922, of which the Jewish population increased by 108.4%.[1]

The population was divided by religion as follows: 759,717 Muslims, 174,610 Jews, 91,398 Christians, 9,148 Druzes, 350 Bahais, 182 Samaritans, and 421 "no religion".[3]

1931 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suffice it to say, you are full of it and are just spewing Zionist propaganda which is not supported by facts and is in fact opposite of what the facts are.


It was never intended that the Jews establish a state for Jews in Palestine as the British White Paper of 1939 clearly states. You people have brainwashed and refuse to read source material so it is no surprise you rarely know what you are talking about. From the 1939 White Paper:

"It has been urged that the expression "a national home for the Jewish people" offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government do not wish to contest the view, which was expressed by the Royal Commission, that the Zionist leaders at the time of the issue of the Balfour Declaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration. But, with the Royal Commission, His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. That Palestine was not to be converted into a Jewish State might be held to be implied in the passage from the Command Paper of 1922 which reads as follows

"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."

But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.......The objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. The proposal for the establishment of the independent State would involve consultation with the Council of the League of Nations with a view to the termination of the Mandate.

The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded."


The Avalon Project : British White Paper of 1939

I would hope that this would shut you no nothings up with respect to the reason why the Christians and Muslims of Palestine believe they were betrayed and continue to fight so fervently for the return of their homes.

(COMMENT)

First, I could not care less about the census. It is merely raw data for further consideration. It doesn't drive policy.

Second, borders have two sides. One side of the border was Turkey, the other side was land it relinquished, as discussed. You're being naive if you think the territory was not relinquished to the Allied Powers. As far as the Treaty of Sevres is concerned, you are correct, it never went into full force, because of the Civil War on Independence fought by Ataturk to overturn it. Thus, it was a foundational document, yet not an enforceable document. However, as the had been in play for nearly four years, much of the details relative to the Middle East had already been put into practice. Thus, you will notice that the Treaty of Lausanne cites the Anglo-French Treaty (which incorporates the Syke-Picot Agreement) as the initial territorial reference. As for the Palestinians, they would have been better-off if the Treaty of Sevres had been brought into force. The language on rights is much stronger in their favor. But alas, the protections were left out of the Treaty of Lausanne.

Third, the 1939 White Paper is often cited by Palestinians, yet it is well known that the Paper itself was brought under scrutiny by the Mandatory (UK Government). The "White Paper" is not an enforceable agreement, but rather - a statement of policy under a given administration, subject to change or re-interpretation.

110. The Mandatory’s new statement of policy was examined by the Permanent Mandates Commission at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939. the commission reported that:

“the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”​

They went on to consider whether the Mandate was open to a new interpretation with which the White Paper would not be at variance. Four of the seven members

“did not feel able to state that the policy of the White Paper was in conformity with the Mandate, any contrary conclusion appearing to them to be ruled out by the very terms of the Mandate and by the fundamental intentions of its authors.”​

The other three members “were unable to share this opinion; they consider that existing circumstances would justify the policy of the White Paper, provided the Council did not oppose it.”

111. It was the intention of His Majesty’s government to seek the approval of the League Council for their new policy. This, however, they were prevented from doing by the outbreak of war in September.

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

While it was a close vote, in the end, the Mandate/Trustee Council voted against the interpretation that the 1939 White Paper "was in conformity with the Mandate." Thus, you can reduce the bold font and bright red color of your statement above. You simply didn't read far enough in history to know that the interpretation wasn't approved. And it wasn't likely to be approved after the war; given the wartime events against the Jewish population during the war.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

The White Paper was not a proposal. It was a clarification. It merely defined the purpose of the mandate.

The white paper did no such thing, as the British government could not over rule the Mandate. The mandate had already stated that the remit was to give the Jews a home in Palestine, and at the time of the remit Palestine included trans Jordan and parts of Syria and Lebanon. And the maps show that the land allocated was from the sea to the river.

Look at the mandate charter and the League of Nations Covenant.

The 1939 White Paper says the same thing.

And it means NOTHING, as it was just a proposal that fell at the first hurdle. It had no basis in law and could not alter the mandate in any way.
This is the mandate's remit.

The formal objective of the League of Nations Mandate system was to administer parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century, "until such time as they are able to stand alone."[5] The mandate document formalised the division of the British protectorates - Palestine, to include a national home for the Jewish people, under direct British rule, and Transjordan, an Emirate governed semi-autonomously from Britain under the rule of the Hashemite family.

No mention in there of a "Palestinian state" is there.

The preamble of the mandate document declared:


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.[28]


Again no mention of a " Palestinian state "


Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations[edit]

The preamble of the Mandate document states that the Mandate is granted to Britain "for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations". That article states that "(...) [C]ommunities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone." Throughout the period of the Mandate, Palestinian leaders cited this as proving their assertion that the British were obliged under the terms of the Mandate to facilitate the eventual creation of an independent Arab state in Palestine.



And yet again no mention of a " Palestinian state " until the arab muslims decided that this is what it said. But another massive fail as they have so9 far proven that they are not ready to stand alone.

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you've again misread the script.

And as you have been told the state was Britain under the mandate, it could not have been Palestine as it had no governing body of its own


The various groups that lived in the area that did not yet have any government. These groups included Jews, Christians, arab nomads and itinerant arab workers.

As explained the only outside influence on the arabs was that of the arab league.

They had the chance of national independence and sovereignty and turned it down until 1988 when they saw they were losing everything.

And if they had no homes then were do they go

Which they have and still they attack their neighbours, showing that they are not capable of any form of self determination.

Actually, there was a Government and according to the 1922 British census resident Muslims and Christians were over 80% and Jews about 12% of the population.

"The 1922 census of Palestine was the first census carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine, on 23 October 1922.[1]
The reported population was 757,182, including the military and persons of foreign nationality. The division into religious groups was 590,390 Muslims, 83,694 Jews, 73,024 Christians, 7,028 Druze, 808 Sikhs, 265 Bahais, 156 Metawalis, and 163 Samaritans.[2]"

1922 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the 1931 British census the overall population increased 36.8% but the Jewish population increased by 108.4% through immigration. But Muslims and Christians remained close to 80% of the population as late as 1931.

"The total population reported was 1,035,821 (1,033,314 excluding the numbers of H.M. Forces)[2] – an increase of 36.8% since 1922, of which the Jewish population increased by 108.4%.[1]

The population was divided by religion as follows: 759,717 Muslims, 174,610 Jews, 91,398 Christians, 9,148 Druzes, 350 Bahais, 182 Samaritans, and 421 "no religion".[3]

1931 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suffice it to say, you are full of it and are just spewing Zionist propaganda which is not supported by facts and is in fact opposite of what the facts are.


It was never intended that the Jews establish a state for Jews in Palestine as the British White Paper of 1939 clearly states. You people have brainwashed and refuse to read source material so it is no surprise you rarely know what you are talking about. From the 1939 White Paper:

"It has been urged that the expression "a national home for the Jewish people" offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government do not wish to contest the view, which was expressed by the Royal Commission, that the Zionist leaders at the time of the issue of the Balfour Declaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration. But, with the Royal Commission, His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. That Palestine was not to be converted into a Jewish State might be held to be implied in the passage from the Command Paper of 1922 which reads as follows

"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."

But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.......The objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. The proposal for the establishment of the independent State would involve consultation with the Council of the League of Nations with a view to the termination of the Mandate.

The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded."


The Avalon Project : British White Paper of 1939

I would hope that this would shut you no nothings up with respect to the reason why the Christians and Muslims of Palestine believe they were betrayed and continue to fight so fervently for the return of their homes.

(COMMENT)

First, I could not care less about the census. It is merely raw data for further consideration. It doesn't drive policy.

Second, borders have two sides. One side of the border was Turkey, the other side was land it relinquished, as discussed. You're being naive if you think the territory was not relinquished to the Allied Powers. As far as the Treaty of Sevres is concerned, you are correct, it never went into full force, because of the Civil War on Independence fought by Ataturk to overturn it. Thus, it was a foundational document, yet not an enforceable document. However, as the had been in play for nearly four years, much of the details relative to the Middle East had already been put into practice. Thus, you will notice that the Treaty of Lausanne cites the Anglo-French Treaty (which incorporates the Syke-Picot Agreement) as the initial territorial reference. As for the Palestinians, they would have been better-off if the Treaty of Sevres had been brought into force. The language on rights is much stronger in their favor. But alas, the protections were left out of the Treaty of Lausanne.

Third, the 1939 White Paper is often cited by Palestinians, yet it is well known that the Paper itself was brought under scrutiny by the Mandatory (UK Government). The "White Paper" is not an enforceable agreement, but rather - a statement of policy under a given administration, subject to change or re-interpretation.

110. The Mandatory’s new statement of policy was examined by the Permanent Mandates Commission at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939. the commission reported that:

“the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”​

They went on to consider whether the Mandate was open to a new interpretation with which the White Paper would not be at variance. Four of the seven members

“did not feel able to state that the policy of the White Paper was in conformity with the Mandate, any contrary conclusion appearing to them to be ruled out by the very terms of the Mandate and by the fundamental intentions of its authors.”​

The other three members “were unable to share this opinion; they consider that existing circumstances would justify the policy of the White Paper, provided the Council did not oppose it.”

111. It was the intention of His Majesty’s government to seek the approval of the League Council for their new policy. This, however, they were prevented from doing by the outbreak of war in September.

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

While it was a close vote, in the end, the Mandate/Trustee Council voted against the interpretation that the 1939 White Paper "was in conformity with the Mandate." Thus, you can reduce the bold font and bright red color of your statement above. You simply didn't read far enough in history to know that the interpretation wasn't approved. And it wasn't likely to be approved after the war; given the wartime events against the Jewish population during the war.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Commission was a purely advisory body. Only the Council could change the White Paper's interpretation of the Mandate, which it did not. So you can whine all you want about what the advisory commission voted on 4 to 3, but it makes no difference as the interpretation of the Mandate by the British (as the Mandatory) was the law until, and if, the Council changed the interpretation. And, the Council did not change it and you have absolutely no idea what the Council might have done.

Beyond the White Paper the fact is that the the notes of the San Remo Conference and the Mandate itself clearly stated that: "it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..."

The creation of a Jewish State on lands that non-Jews lived prejudiced the civil and religious rights of the non-Jews. So, the White Paper was correct in stating that the goal of the Mandate was to establish an independent state and that:The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded."

 

[Hossfly]

Actually, there was a Government and according to the 1922 British census resident Muslims and Christians were over 80% and Jews about 12% of the population.

"The 1922 census of Palestine was the first census carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine, on 23 October 1922.[1]
The reported population was 757,182, including the military and persons of foreign nationality. The division into religious groups was 590,390 Muslims, 83,694 Jews, 73,024 Christians, 7,028 Druze, 808 Sikhs, 265 Bahais, 156 Metawalis, and 163 Samaritans.[2]"

1922 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the 1931 British census the overall population increased 36.8% but the Jewish population increased by 108.4% through immigration. But Muslims and Christians remained close to 80% of the population as late as 1931.

"The total population reported was 1,035,821 (1,033,314 excluding the numbers of H.M. Forces)[2] – an increase of 36.8% since 1922, of which the Jewish population increased by 108.4%.[1]

The population was divided by religion as follows: 759,717 Muslims, 174,610 Jews, 91,398 Christians, 9,148 Druzes, 350 Bahais, 182 Samaritans, and 421 "no religion".[3]

1931 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suffice it to say, you are full of it and are just spewing Zionist propaganda which is not supported by facts and is in fact opposite of what the facts are.


It was never intended that the Jews establish a state for Jews in Palestine as the British White Paper of 1939 clearly states. You people have brainwashed and refuse to read source material so it is no surprise you rarely know what you are talking about. From the 1939 White Paper:

"It has been urged that the expression "a national home for the Jewish people" offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government do not wish to contest the view, which was expressed by the Royal Commission, that the Zionist leaders at the time of the issue of the Balfour Declaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration. But, with the Royal Commission, His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. That Palestine was not to be converted into a Jewish State might be held to be implied in the passage from the Command Paper of 1922 which reads as follows

"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."

But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.......The objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. The proposal for the establishment of the independent State would involve consultation with the Council of the League of Nations with a view to the termination of the Mandate.

The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded."


The Avalon Project : British White Paper of 1939

I would hope that this would shut you no nothings up with respect to the reason why the Christians and Muslims of Palestine believe they were betrayed and continue to fight so fervently for the return of their homes.

And if you read your own link it tells you it is the British government
The 1922 census of Palestine was the first census carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine, on 23 October 1922.[1]


All well and good but an increase of 108% of 1,000 is only 1,008, an increase of 36% of 760,000 is 273,498 so you do the real sums.


No I am posting from reliable unbiased sources unlike your ISLAMONAZI sources that are full of LIES


The white paper was not LAW just a proposal that did not get past its first reading, so was shelved. And the LoN mandate over ruled anything the British government tried to put in place. So maybe you should try taking heed of your own words for once. The MANDATE stated that the Jews were to have a homeland in Palestine, the British government could not change the rules to suit their ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATREDS.

The White Paper was not a proposal. It was a clarification. It merely defined the purpose of the mandate.

Tinmore, in retrospect, the New York Yankees were supposed to kill the Pittsburgh Pirates in the 1960 World Series. What happened? Can we go back and fix it? That's the argument you're trying to use. Give it up.

 

[montelatici]

And if you read your own link it tells you it is the British government
The 1922 census of Palestine was the first census carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine, on 23 October 1922.[1]


All well and good but an increase of 108% of 1,000 is only 1,008, an increase of 36% of 760,000 is 273,498 so you do the real sums.


No I am posting from reliable unbiased sources unlike your ISLAMONAZI sources that are full of LIES


The white paper was not LAW just a proposal that did not get past its first reading, so was shelved. And the LoN mandate over ruled anything the British government tried to put in place. So maybe you should try taking heed of your own words for once. The MANDATE stated that the Jews were to have a homeland in Palestine, the British government could not change the rules to suit their ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATREDS.

The White Paper was not a proposal. It was a clarification. It merely defined the purpose of the mandate.

Tinmore, in retrospect, the New York Yankees were supposed to kill the Pittsburgh Pirates in the 1960 World Series. What happened? Can we go back and fix it? That's the argument you're trying to use. Give it up.

I am not sure if a wrong can be fixed, but recognizing it was a wrong is a good first step.

 

[aris2chat]

montelatici, P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you've again misread the script.

Actually, there was a Government and according to the 1922 British census resident Muslims and Christians were over 80% and Jews about 12% of the population.

"The 1922 census of Palestine was the first census carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine, on 23 October 1922.[1]
The reported population was 757,182, including the military and persons of foreign nationality. The division into religious groups was 590,390 Muslims, 83,694 Jews, 73,024 Christians, 7,028 Druze, 808 Sikhs, 265 Bahais, 156 Metawalis, and 163 Samaritans.[2]"

1922 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the 1931 British census the overall population increased 36.8% but the Jewish population increased by 108.4% through immigration. But Muslims and Christians remained close to 80% of the population as late as 1931.

"The total population reported was 1,035,821 (1,033,314 excluding the numbers of H.M. Forces)[2] – an increase of 36.8% since 1922, of which the Jewish population increased by 108.4%.[1]

The population was divided by religion as follows: 759,717 Muslims, 174,610 Jews, 91,398 Christians, 9,148 Druzes, 350 Bahais, 182 Samaritans, and 421 "no religion".[3]

1931 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suffice it to say, you are full of it and are just spewing Zionist propaganda which is not supported by facts and is in fact opposite of what the facts are.


It was never intended that the Jews establish a state for Jews in Palestine as the British White Paper of 1939 clearly states. You people have brainwashed and refuse to read source material so it is no surprise you rarely know what you are talking about. From the 1939 White Paper:

"It has been urged that the expression "a national home for the Jewish people" offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government do not wish to contest the view, which was expressed by the Royal Commission, that the Zionist leaders at the time of the issue of the Balfour Declaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration. But, with the Royal Commission, His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. That Palestine was not to be converted into a Jewish State might be held to be implied in the passage from the Command Paper of 1922 which reads as follows

"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."

But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.......The objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. The proposal for the establishment of the independent State would involve consultation with the Council of the League of Nations with a view to the termination of the Mandate.

The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded."


The Avalon Project : British White Paper of 1939

I would hope that this would shut you no nothings up with respect to the reason why the Christians and Muslims of Palestine believe they were betrayed and continue to fight so fervently for the return of their homes.

(COMMENT)

First, I could not care less about the census. It is merely raw data for further consideration. It doesn't drive policy.

Second, borders have two sides. One side of the border was Turkey, the other side was land it relinquished, as discussed. You're being naive if you think the territory was not relinquished to the Allied Powers. As far as the Treaty of Sevres is concerned, you are correct, it never went into full force, because of the Civil War on Independence fought by Ataturk to overturn it. Thus, it was a foundational document, yet not an enforceable document. However, as the had been in play for nearly four years, much of the details relative to the Middle East had already been put into practice. Thus, you will notice that the Treaty of Lausanne cites the Anglo-French Treaty (which incorporates the Syke-Picot Agreement) as the initial territorial reference. As for the Palestinians, they would have been better-off if the Treaty of Sevres had been brought into force. The language on rights is much stronger in their favor. But alas, the protections were left out of the Treaty of Lausanne.

Third, the 1939 White Paper is often cited by Palestinians, yet it is well known that the Paper itself was brought under scrutiny by the Mandatory (UK Government). The "White Paper" is not an enforceable agreement, but rather - a statement of policy under a given administration, subject to change or re-interpretation.

110. The Mandatory’s new statement of policy was examined by the Permanent Mandates Commission at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939. the commission reported that:

“the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”​

They went on to consider whether the Mandate was open to a new interpretation with which the White Paper would not be at variance. Four of the seven members

“did not feel able to state that the policy of the White Paper was in conformity with the Mandate, any contrary conclusion appearing to them to be ruled out by the very terms of the Mandate and by the fundamental intentions of its authors.”​

The other three members “were unable to share this opinion; they consider that existing circumstances would justify the policy of the White Paper, provided the Council did not oppose it.”

111. It was the intention of His Majesty’s government to seek the approval of the League Council for their new policy. This, however, they were prevented from doing by the outbreak of war in September.

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

While it was a close vote, in the end, the Mandate/Trustee Council voted against the interpretation that the 1939 White Paper "was in conformity with the Mandate." Thus, you can reduce the bold font and bright red color of your statement above. You simply didn't read far enough in history to know that the interpretation wasn't approved. And it wasn't likely to be approved after the war; given the wartime events against the Jewish population during the war.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Commission was a purely advisory body. Only the Council could change the White Paper's interpretation of the Mandate, which it did not. So you can whine all you want about what the advisory commission voted on 4 to 3, but it makes no difference as the interpretation of the Mandate by the British (as the Mandatory) was the law until, and if, the Council changed the interpretation. And, the Council did not change it and you have absolutely no idea what the Council might have done.

Beyond the White Paper the fact is that the the notes of the San Remo Conference and the Mandate itself clearly stated that: "it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..."

The creation of a Jewish State on lands that non-Jews lived prejudiced the civil and religious rights of the non-Jews. So, the White Paper was correct in stating that the goal of the Mandate was to establish an independent state and that:The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded."

Please don't make the font so large. One step up in font is sufficient.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

And if you read your own link it tells you it is the British government
The 1922 census of Palestine was the first census carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine, on 23 October 1922.[1]


All well and good but an increase of 108% of 1,000 is only 1,008, an increase of 36% of 760,000 is 273,498 so you do the real sums.


No I am posting from reliable unbiased sources unlike your ISLAMONAZI sources that are full of LIES


The white paper was not LAW just a proposal that did not get past its first reading, so was shelved. And the LoN mandate over ruled anything the British government tried to put in place. So maybe you should try taking heed of your own words for once. The MANDATE stated that the Jews were to have a homeland in Palestine, the British government could not change the rules to suit their ANTI SEMITIC JEW HATREDS.

The White Paper was not a proposal. It was a clarification. It merely defined the purpose of the mandate.

Tinmore, in retrospect, the New York Yankees were supposed to kill the Pittsburgh Pirates in the 1960 World Series. What happened? Can we go back and fix it? That's the argument you're trying to use. Give it up.

Yes, Mr. Tinmore, you should try to live in the here and now.

 

[P F Tinmore]

...the Mandate/Trustee Council voted against the interpretation that the 1939 White Paper "was in conformity with the Mandate."

What part of the white Paper deviated from the mandate and LoN Covenant?

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you've again misread the script.

Actually, there was a Government and according to the 1922 British census resident Muslims and Christians were over 80% and Jews about 12% of the population.

"The 1922 census of Palestine was the first census carried out by the authorities of the British Mandate of Palestine, on 23 October 1922.[1]
The reported population was 757,182, including the military and persons of foreign nationality. The division into religious groups was 590,390 Muslims, 83,694 Jews, 73,024 Christians, 7,028 Druze, 808 Sikhs, 265 Bahais, 156 Metawalis, and 163 Samaritans.[2]"

1922 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the 1931 British census the overall population increased 36.8% but the Jewish population increased by 108.4% through immigration. But Muslims and Christians remained close to 80% of the population as late as 1931.

"The total population reported was 1,035,821 (1,033,314 excluding the numbers of H.M. Forces)[2] – an increase of 36.8% since 1922, of which the Jewish population increased by 108.4%.[1]

The population was divided by religion as follows: 759,717 Muslims, 174,610 Jews, 91,398 Christians, 9,148 Druzes, 350 Bahais, 182 Samaritans, and 421 "no religion".[3]

1931 census of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suffice it to say, you are full of it and are just spewing Zionist propaganda which is not supported by facts and is in fact opposite of what the facts are.


It was never intended that the Jews establish a state for Jews in Palestine as the British White Paper of 1939 clearly states. You people have brainwashed and refuse to read source material so it is no surprise you rarely know what you are talking about. From the 1939 White Paper:

"It has been urged that the expression "a national home for the Jewish people" offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government do not wish to contest the view, which was expressed by the Royal Commission, that the Zionist leaders at the time of the issue of the Balfour Declaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration. But, with the Royal Commission, His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. That Palestine was not to be converted into a Jewish State might be held to be implied in the passage from the Command Paper of 1922 which reads as follows

"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.' His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."

But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.......The objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. The proposal for the establishment of the independent State would involve consultation with the Council of the League of Nations with a view to the termination of the Mandate.

The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded."


The Avalon Project : British White Paper of 1939

I would hope that this would shut you no nothings up with respect to the reason why the Christians and Muslims of Palestine believe they were betrayed and continue to fight so fervently for the return of their homes.

(COMMENT)

First, I could not care less about the census. It is merely raw data for further consideration. It doesn't drive policy.

Second, borders have two sides. One side of the border was Turkey, the other side was land it relinquished, as discussed. You're being naive if you think the territory was not relinquished to the Allied Powers. As far as the Treaty of Sevres is concerned, you are correct, it never went into full force, because of the Civil War on Independence fought by Ataturk to overturn it. Thus, it was a foundational document, yet not an enforceable document. However, as the had been in play for nearly four years, much of the details relative to the Middle East had already been put into practice. Thus, you will notice that the Treaty of Lausanne cites the Anglo-French Treaty (which incorporates the Syke-Picot Agreement) as the initial territorial reference. As for the Palestinians, they would have been better-off if the Treaty of Sevres had been brought into force. The language on rights is much stronger in their favor. But alas, the protections were left out of the Treaty of Lausanne.

Third, the 1939 White Paper is often cited by Palestinians, yet it is well known that the Paper itself was brought under scrutiny by the Mandatory (UK Government). The "White Paper" is not an enforceable agreement, but rather - a statement of policy under a given administration, subject to change or re-interpretation.

110. The Mandatory’s new statement of policy was examined by the Permanent Mandates Commission at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939. the commission reported that:

“the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”​

They went on to consider whether the Mandate was open to a new interpretation with which the White Paper would not be at variance. Four of the seven members

“did not feel able to state that the policy of the White Paper was in conformity with the Mandate, any contrary conclusion appearing to them to be ruled out by the very terms of the Mandate and by the fundamental intentions of its authors.”​

The other three members “were unable to share this opinion; they consider that existing circumstances would justify the policy of the White Paper, provided the Council did not oppose it.”

111. It was the intention of His Majesty’s government to seek the approval of the League Council for their new policy. This, however, they were prevented from doing by the outbreak of war in September.

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

While it was a close vote, in the end, the Mandate/Trustee Council voted against the interpretation that the 1939 White Paper "was in conformity with the Mandate." Thus, you can reduce the bold font and bright red color of your statement above. You simply didn't read far enough in history to know that the interpretation wasn't approved. And it wasn't likely to be approved after the war; given the wartime events against the Jewish population during the war.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Commission was a purely advisory body. Only the Council could change the White Paper's interpretation of the Mandate, which it did not. So you can whine all you want about what the advisory commission voted on 4 to 3, but it makes no difference as the interpretation of the Mandate by the British (as the Mandatory) was the law until, and if, the Council changed the interpretation. And, the Council did not change it and you have absolutely no idea what the Council might have done.

Beyond the White Paper the fact is that the the notes of the San Remo Conference and the Mandate itself clearly stated that: "it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..."

The creation of a Jewish State on lands that non-Jews lived prejudiced the civil and religious rights of the non-Jews. So, the White Paper was correct in stating that the goal of the Mandate was to establish an independent state and that:The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded."

Which is exactly how Israel is run today with arab muslim and Christian members of the Knesset having just as much right to speak their mind. Under an arab muslim government the Jews and Christians would be ethnically cleansed and mass murdered if they spoke out.

Forget the white paper it had no more basis in law than this forum does.

What about the rights of the Jews that lived in the area, didn't they have the right to free determination and the a national identity. It seems that you ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDISTS don't want the Jews to have any rights and would rather see them all mass murdered to allow for an arab spring bloodbath.

 

[Hossfly]

...the Mandate/Trustee Council voted against the interpretation that the 1939 White Paper "was in conformity with the Mandate."

What part of the white Paper deviated from the mandate and LoN Covenant?

What part or parts of any of those mentioned are still relevant, Mr. Tinmore? Truthfully.

 

[Phoenall]

The White Paper was not a proposal. It was a clarification. It merely defined the purpose of the mandate.

Tinmore, in retrospect, the New York Yankees were supposed to kill the Pittsburgh Pirates in the 1960 World Series. What happened? Can we go back and fix it? That's the argument you're trying to use. Give it up.

I am not sure if a wrong can be fixed, but recognizing it was a wrong is a good first step.

But the white paper was an attempt by Britain to re write the terms of the mandate, which is why the LoN kicked it into touch as being against the Mandate Charter.

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, P F Tinmore, et al,

I think you've again misread the script.


(COMMENT)

First, I could not care less about the census. It is merely raw data for further consideration. It doesn't drive policy.

Second, borders have two sides. One side of the border was Turkey, the other side was land it relinquished, as discussed. You're being naive if you think the territory was not relinquished to the Allied Powers. As far as the Treaty of Sevres is concerned, you are correct, it never went into full force, because of the Civil War on Independence fought by Ataturk to overturn it. Thus, it was a foundational document, yet not an enforceable document. However, as the had been in play for nearly four years, much of the details relative to the Middle East had already been put into practice. Thus, you will notice that the Treaty of Lausanne cites the Anglo-French Treaty (which incorporates the Syke-Picot Agreement) as the initial territorial reference. As for the Palestinians, they would have been better-off if the Treaty of Sevres had been brought into force. The language on rights is much stronger in their favor. But alas, the protections were left out of the Treaty of Lausanne.

Third, the 1939 White Paper is often cited by Palestinians, yet it is well known that the Paper itself was brought under scrutiny by the Mandatory (UK Government). The "White Paper" is not an enforceable agreement, but rather - a statement of policy under a given administration, subject to change or re-interpretation.



While it was a close vote, in the end, the Mandate/Trustee Council voted against the interpretation that the 1939 White Paper "was in conformity with the Mandate." Thus, you can reduce the bold font and bright red color of your statement above. You simply didn't read far enough in history to know that the interpretation wasn't approved. And it wasn't likely to be approved after the war; given the wartime events against the Jewish population during the war.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Commission was a purely advisory body. Only the Council could change the White Paper's interpretation of the Mandate, which it did not. So you can whine all you want about what the advisory commission voted on 4 to 3, but it makes no difference as the interpretation of the Mandate by the British (as the Mandatory) was the law until, and if, the Council changed the interpretation. And, the Council did not change it and you have absolutely no idea what the Council might have done.

Beyond the White Paper the fact is that the the notes of the San Remo Conference and the Mandate itself clearly stated that: "it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..."

The creation of a Jewish State on lands that non-Jews lived prejudiced the civil and religious rights of the non-Jews. So, the White Paper was correct in stating that the goal of the Mandate was to establish an independent state and that:The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded."

Which is exactly how Israel is run today with arab muslim and Christian members of the Knesset having just as much right to speak their mind. Under an arab muslim government the Jews and Christians would be ethnically cleansed and mass murdered if they spoke out.

Forget the white paper it had no more basis in law than this forum does.

What about the rights of the Jews that lived in the area, didn't they have the right to free determination and the a national identity. It seems that you ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDISTS don't want the Jews to have any rights and would rather see them all mass murdered to allow for an arab spring bloodbath.

Not at the expense of the non-Jews as the Mandate clearly stated. I am in favor of a secular state where people have equal rights. What the Mandatory wanted. That is not the case in the areas Israel controls. The White Paper was the Mandatory's interpretation of the Mandate, hence the law.

 

[aris2chat]

white paper was rejected as it goes against the mandate

 

[montelatici]

white paper was rejected as it goes against the mandate

The White Paper was not rejected. The Council never voted on it. It was the interpretation that was accepted.

 

[Sally]

The Commission was a purely advisory body. Only the Council could change the White Paper's interpretation of the Mandate, which it did not. So you can whine all you want about what the advisory commission voted on 4 to 3, but it makes no difference as the interpretation of the Mandate by the British (as the Mandatory) was the law until, and if, the Council changed the interpretation. And, the Council did not change it and you have absolutely no idea what the Council might have done.

Beyond the White Paper the fact is that the the notes of the San Remo Conference and the Mandate itself clearly stated that: "it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..."

The creation of a Jewish State on lands that non-Jews lived prejudiced the civil and religious rights of the non-Jews. So, the White Paper was correct in stating that the goal of the Mandate was to establish an independent state and that:The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded."

Which is exactly how Israel is run today with arab muslim and Christian members of the Knesset having just as much right to speak their mind. Under an arab muslim government the Jews and Christians would be ethnically cleansed and mass murdered if they spoke out.

Forget the white paper it had no more basis in law than this forum does.

What about the rights of the Jews that lived in the area, didn't they have the right to free determination and the a national identity. It seems that you ISLAMONAZI PROPAGANDISTS don't want the Jews to have any rights and would rather see them all mass murdered to allow for an arab spring bloodbath.

Not at the expense of the non-Jews as the Mandate clearly stated. I am in favor of a secular state where people have equal rights. What the Mandatory wanted. That is not the case in the areas Israel controls. The White Paper was the Mandatory's interpretation of the Mandate, hence the law.

Actually I am in favor of all the Muslim countries bvecoming secular states where people can practice in peace whatever religion they please without being harassed or murdered. After all, these Muslim countries never originally were Muslim countries in the first place but forced their religion on others. No doubt you will agree with me being the unbiased person you are. Think at how happy the Christians, Hindus and Muslims will be to finally have some peace. In fact the different Muslim sects will be happy too because they wouldn't have to worry about being blown up by other Muslim sects.

 

[SAYIT]

Originally posted by SAYIT
Compensation ($30 bil) was offered 14 years ago and despite the willingness of the vast majority of Palestinians to accept it and move on.

How clueless a human being have to be to seriously believe and have the courage to post the statement in bold on an Internet forum?

At lest 92% of the palestinian people consider the ROR a non-negotiable point in any peace agreement.

God knows there is no shortage of "personal opinions" regarding this land conflict, but this is not an opinion, this is a fact that is not even open for debate.

Please, notice that even Kondor in his reply chose to ignore the main message of the post (it was Arafat's fault) and correctly put the "blame" where it rightly belong: on the shoulders of the palestinian people.

Sayit's insane statement, completely divorced from reality was too much cheap zionist propaganda EVEN FOR A FANATICAL ZIONIST LIKE KONDOR.

Perhaps before inserting your foot in your mouth you should know something about the subject, Princess. Read 'em and weep:

Polls: Few Palestinian refugees interested in settling in Israel

RAMALLAH, West Bank (CNN) -- In response to separate polls of more than 4,500 Palestinians living in Lebanon, Jordan, and Gaza and the West Bank, less than a quarter said they would opt to settle in Israel and acquire Israeli citizenship, a Palestinian research group found.

Many Palestinian refugees would prefer to live in an independent Palestinian state or remain where they are rather than settle on lands inside Israel, the survey found.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...h4CgDg&usg=AFQjCNEBuiAhR-knU0FpLPfPlOdIrLiMUg

 

[toastman]

Don't kind Jose, SAYIT. He's about as sharp as a tennis ball.