I will not Bow!

[P F Tinmore]

You should also note that there was a hand-off to the Successor Government (UNPC): Very IMPORTANT!

What did this so called government do to protect the citizens from Israel driving them off their land and destroying their villages?

Did Israel win its land from the UN?

Did the filistans for that matter ?

The Palestinians did not have to win anything. They were already living in Palestine.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, we can address this (again).

Hmmm, why was it called the Palestine mandate?

(COMMENT)

This is a "regional name" much like "Appalachia" is a regional name in the US. Even after all this time, still within the region, there are such things. Right next door to the former Mandate of Palestine is Saudi Arabia; I'll use it as an example as it still uses the ancient administrative regional names.

See the Governorates of Saudi Arabia page]

There is a division into four provinces, on a historical basis. Their boundaries do not necessarily coincide with region boundaries. The regions are subdivided into governorates.

Territorial extent:

• Ash Sharqīyah contains all of Saudi Arabia's islands in the Persian Gulf: Al `Arabiyah, Abu `Ali, Al Batinah, Tarut, Harqus, Karan, Kurayn, Al Jurayd, and others.
• Jīzan includes the Farasan Islands in the Red Sea.
• Makkah includes Qishran, Sirrayn, Abu Latt, and other Red Sea islands.
• Tabūk includes the islands of Tiran, Sanafir, Al Hasani, Shaybara, Mashabih, and others along the Red Sea coast.

SOURCE: Regional Governorates

The name of "Palestine" was the undefined Ottoman Region name handed down through the Treaty of Sevres. Like the other ancient Arab Governorates (examples cited above), the boundaries of Palestine do not necessarily coincide with region boundaries. The Administrative Region of Palestine covered a territory that stretched all the way to Mesopotamia (present day Iraq). You will also note that most of the boundaries in the larger Middle East and Persian Gulf region, is made of "straight line segments." This is because they come from surveys conducted by the European Powers.

ARTICLE 95.

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.​

SOURCE: Treaty of Sevres

What land was the Arab League trying to claim?

(COMMENT)

Two facts impact this question. First, one has to understand who the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) was in the period covering the development of the November 1947 Recommendations and subsequent Resolution [GA/RES/181(II)].

The AHC was moribund during World War II. In November 1945 and May 1946 the Arab League reorganized the AHC, giving disproportionate representation to the Husaynis. The AHC testified before the United Nations in spring 1947 but boycotted the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, 1947 (UNSCOP) mission and was quoted in the New York Times as rejecting its partition plan as "impracticable and unjust" (9 Sept. 1947). After the United Nations endorsed partition, the AHC failed to design a Palestinian government or an effective military strategy. It tried to form an All-Palestine Government in Gaza in September 1948, but subsequently lost its leadership role. Amin alHusayni remained the nominal head, living in exile.

UN Question (D) If so, what governments and for what purpose?

AHC Answer: The Arab Higher Committee solicited assistance of the following Arab countries: Egypt, Saudi-Arabia, Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Trans-Jordan, in order to reinstate peace and order in Palestine. Their purpose and task is one of pacification and not of invasion. It has been made clear that once peace and order are restored, the people of Palestine of all creeds will exercise freely their right of self-determination in a general plebiscite.​

UN Question (E) Have you named representatives to deal with the Security Council Truce Commission for the purpose of effecting the Truce called for by the Security Council?

AHC Answer: Since the entrance of regular Arab troops in Palestine, this matter was taken over by the Arab League, in which the Arab Higher Committee is represented.​

UN Question (F) Have Jewish forces penetrated into the territory in which you claim to have authority?

AHC Answer: Arabs claim to have authority over all the area of Palestine as being the political representative of the overwhelming majority of the population. They regard Palestine a one unit. All forces that oppose majority wherever they may be are regarded as unlawful.​

SOURCE: S/775 24 May 1948

A committee of the same name was reconstituted by the Arab League in 1945, but went to abeyance after it proved ineffective during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. It was banned by Jordan in 1948, and sidestepped by Egypt and the Arab League with the formation of the All-Palestine Government in 1948.
SOURCE: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SOURCE: Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa | 2004 | Lesch, Ann M. | 700+ words | Copyright

In defiance of General Assembly Resolution 181(II), the AHC (a puppet regime of the Arab League) stated: "Arabs claim to have authority over all the area of Palestine as being the political representative of the overwhelming majority of the population. They regard Palestine a one unit. All forces that oppose majority wherever they may be are regarded as unlawful."

I do not really have to answer the question, the Arab League, through the AHC Puppet, answers the question.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Kondor3]

What difference does any of this make?

In 1948, the Jews of Palestine established a nation-state, comprised of all the lands that the Jews of Palestine then controlled, and adding some parcels of land that they took from the Muslims of Palestine in the 1947-1948 timeframe.

Any land controlled by the Jews of Palestine, as of 14-May-1948, the date of the Israeli Declaration of Independence, may be considered the lands and the borders of the new State of Israel, both de facto and de jure.

Victory on the battlefield - defined, in this case, by holding-out against the combined assault of five (5) Muslim neighbor nation-states - and the survival of the infant nation-state of Israel - gave substance to this principle.

The declarations of the provisional rump Palestinian government of those early years - eventually dissolved by the Arabs themselves - and the declarations of the Arab League - and the declarations of individual Muslim nation-state neighbors - held that the Muslims intended to destroy the new State of Israel and to recover all of the lands under its control and return them to Muslim control, after dealing with the Jewish population.

One need do no more than dredge-up one of those old declarations, referencing 'all of Palestine' (meaning the including of lands then comprising the new State of Israel), and then find tactical maps showing the lands controlled by the Jews as of a given point in time [1948, 1967, whatever], to demonstrate in geographical terms, the intentions of the Muslims.

What difference does any of this make?

Title-deed to the land has changed hands.

Written in blood.

Blood, and, more importantly, victory on the battlefield, changes everything.

The Palestinians have been defeated.

They now exist only at the whim and pleasure of the Israelis, who could destroy them utterly any time they wished, so long as they were prepared for an adverse reaction beyond their borders.

Thus, the Israelis define victory.

Thus, the rest of the world defines defeat.

Thus, the Palestinians define a temporary setback.

Time will tell us which of those perspectives is the most rational and sane.

Any land controlled by the Jews of Palestine, as of 14-May-1948, the date of the Israeli Declaration of Independence, may be considered the lands and the borders of the new State of Israel, both de facto and de jure.

Do you have a link to that de jure part?

Nope.

You can go digging through the Israeli's own Corpus Juris if you like.

I haven't got the time; nor the need.

Unless, of course, you believe that Israeli Law does not recognize Israeli ownership of the lands they control.

Israeli Law now governs those lands; backed by Israeli muscle.

The rest is meaningless background noise and ancient history that will never again be operative in connection with those lands.

 

[P F Tinmore]

No you did not, you gave an answer to something completely different. The arab league could not claim land by force under the UN charter, which you don't like because it puts both sides on an equal footing.

I already showed that the Palestinian declaration did encroach on anyone else's territory.

So were was the nation of Israel in all this, what provision did the arab league and its minions make for Israel that had been granted the same status as Syria, Iraq, iran, Lebanon and trans Jordan by the same entity and in the same manner ?

Excellent question.

Perhaps you could post a 1948 map of Israel showing where it was during all this.

 

[P F Tinmore]

What difference does any of this make?

In 1948, the Jews of Palestine established a nation-state, comprised of all the lands that the Jews of Palestine then controlled, and adding some parcels of land that they took from the Muslims of Palestine in the 1947-1948 timeframe.

Any land controlled by the Jews of Palestine, as of 14-May-1948, the date of the Israeli Declaration of Independence, may be considered the lands and the borders of the new State of Israel, both de facto and de jure.

Victory on the battlefield - defined, in this case, by holding-out against the combined assault of five (5) Muslim neighbor nation-states - and the survival of the infant nation-state of Israel - gave substance to this principle.

The declarations of the provisional rump Palestinian government of those early years - eventually dissolved by the Arabs themselves - and the declarations of the Arab League - and the declarations of individual Muslim nation-state neighbors - held that the Muslims intended to destroy the new State of Israel and to recover all of the lands under its control and return them to Muslim control, after dealing with the Jewish population.

One need do no more than dredge-up one of those old declarations, referencing 'all of Palestine' (meaning the including of lands then comprising the new State of Israel), and then find tactical maps showing the lands controlled by the Jews as of a given point in time [1948, 1967, whatever], to demonstrate in geographical terms, the intentions of the Muslims.

What difference does any of this make?

Title-deed to the land has changed hands.

Written in blood.

Blood, and, more importantly, victory on the battlefield, changes everything.

The Palestinians have been defeated.

They now exist only at the whim and pleasure of the Israelis, who could destroy them utterly any time they wished, so long as they were prepared for an adverse reaction beyond their borders.

Thus, the Israelis define victory.

Thus, the rest of the world defines defeat.

Thus, the Palestinians define a temporary setback.

Time will tell us which of those perspectives is the most rational and sane.

Any land controlled by the Jews of Palestine, as of 14-May-1948, the date of the Israeli Declaration of Independence, may be considered the lands and the borders of the new State of Israel, both de facto and de jure.

Do you have a link to that de jure part?

Nope.

You can go digging through the Israeli's own Corpus Juris if you like.

I haven't got the time; nor the need.

Unless, of course, you believe that Israeli Law does not recognize Israeli ownership of the lands they control.

Israeli Law now governs those lands; backed by Israeli muscle.

The rest is meaningless background noise and ancient history that will never again be operative in connection with those lands.

That's what I thought. You are just blowing smoke.

 

[Kondor3]

"...That's what I thought. You are just blowing smoke."

Incorrect.

I merely cut the Gordian Knot.

Former legal status, in connection with a nonexistent nation-state called Palestine, do not signify.

Then again, given the present abject state of defeat in which your beloved Palestinians operate, trying to keep old legal arguments alive is the only magic trick left in the bottom of a now-empty bag of Palestinian tricks.

Israeli Law now governs those lands.

Israeli Law recognizes the new owners.

I do not feel like wasting my time proving the point, because you will merely ignore it and continue to bleat-on about former legal status - the only card you have left to play.

My unwillingness to waste my time looking for the particular Acts and Statutes within the Corpus Juris of Israeli Law, which recognize new ownership, does not negate nor invalidate the assertion, nor does it constitute 'blowing smoke'.

I'm sure that any of a couple of dozen folks around here - interested in meeting that particular challenge - can do a better job than I - of dredging-up the particular Israeli statutes which recognize new land ownership in that region.

Me - I've dealt with you long enough - off and on - to realize that that is a waste of time.

1. The Israelis are in possession of those lands.

2. The Israelis have passed laws recognizing the change in land ownership.

3. Israeli Law in such matters overrides any old legal status to the contrary.

4. Israeli military muscle makes (1) thru (3) operative in the Real World.

Somebody else can respond to your juvenile and never-ending 'link?' response here.

If you believe (1) thru (4) above are incorrect, you are welcome to dispute them.

And I won't even ask you for a link.

So long as you argue the points using your own thoughts and words, rather than a boring and never-ending cut-and-paste recital of other people's thoughts.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, we can address this (again).

Hmmm, why was it called the Palestine mandate?

(COMMENT)

This is a "regional name" much like "Appalachia" is a regional name in the US. Even after all this time, still within the region, there are such things. Right next door to the former Mandate of Palestine is Saudi Arabia; I'll use it as an example as it still uses the ancient administrative regional names.

See the Governorates of Saudi Arabia page]

There is a division into four provinces, on a historical basis. Their boundaries do not necessarily coincide with region boundaries. The regions are subdivided into governorates.

Territorial extent:

• Ash Sharqīyah contains all of Saudi Arabia's islands in the Persian Gulf: Al `Arabiyah, Abu `Ali, Al Batinah, Tarut, Harqus, Karan, Kurayn, Al Jurayd, and others.
• Jīzan includes the Farasan Islands in the Red Sea.
• Makkah includes Qishran, Sirrayn, Abu Latt, and other Red Sea islands.
• Tabūk includes the islands of Tiran, Sanafir, Al Hasani, Shaybara, Mashabih, and others along the Red Sea coast.

SOURCE: Regional Governorates

The name of "Palestine" was the undefined Ottoman Region name handed down through the Treaty of Sevres. Like the other ancient Arab Governorates (examples cited above), the boundaries of Palestine do not necessarily coincide with region boundaries. The Administrative Region of Palestine covered a territory that stretched all the way to Mesopotamia (present day Iraq). You will also note that most of the boundaries in the larger Middle East and Persian Gulf region, is made of "straight line segments." This is because they come from surveys conducted by the European Powers.




(COMMENT)

Two facts impact this question. First, one has to understand who the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) was in the period covering the development of the November 1947 Recommendations and subsequent Resolution [GA/RES/181(II)].

The AHC was moribund during World War II. In November 1945 and May 1946 the Arab League reorganized the AHC, giving disproportionate representation to the Husaynis. The AHC testified before the United Nations in spring 1947 but boycotted the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, 1947 (UNSCOP) mission and was quoted in the New York Times as rejecting its partition plan as "impracticable and unjust" (9 Sept. 1947). After the United Nations endorsed partition, the AHC failed to design a Palestinian government or an effective military strategy. It tried to form an All-Palestine Government in Gaza in September 1948, but subsequently lost its leadership role. Amin alHusayni remained the nominal head, living in exile.

A committee of the same name was reconstituted by the Arab League in 1945, but went to abeyance after it proved ineffective during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. It was banned by Jordan in 1948, and sidestepped by Egypt and the Arab League with the formation of the All-Palestine Government in 1948.
SOURCE: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SOURCE: Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa | 2004 | Lesch, Ann M. | 700+ words | Copyright

In defiance of General Assembly Resolution 181(II), the AHC (a puppet regime of the Arab League) stated: "Arabs claim to have authority over all the area of Palestine as being the political representative of the overwhelming majority of the population. They regard Palestine a one unit. All forces that oppose majority wherever they may be are regarded as unlawful."

I do not really have to answer the question, the Arab League, through the AHC Puppet, answers the question.

Most Respectfully,
R

Holy verbosity, Batman! Could you condense all that down to something more relative to my post?

 

[P F Tinmore]

"...That's what I thought. You are just blowing smoke."

Incorrect.

I merely cut the Gordian Knot.

Former legal status, in connection with a nonexistent nation-state called Palestine, do not signify.

Then again, given the present abject state of defeat in which your beloved Palestinians operate, trying to keep old legal arguments alive is the only magic trick left in the bottom of a now-empty bag of Palestinian tricks.

Israeli Law now governs those lands.

Israeli Law recognizes the new owners.

I do not feel like wasting my time proving the point, because you will merely ignore it and continue to bleat-on about former legal status - the only card you have left to play.

My unwillingness to waste my time looking for the particular Acts and Statutes within the Corpus Juris of Israeli Law, which recognize new ownership, does not negate nor invalidate the assertion, nor does it constitute 'blowing smoke'.

I'm sure that any of a couple of dozen folks around here - interested in meeting that particular challenge - can do a better job than I - of dredging-up the particular Israeli statutes which recognize new land ownership in that region.

Me - I've dealt with you long enough - off and on - to realize that that is a waste of time.

1. The Israelis are in possession of those lands.

2. The Israelis have passed laws recognizing the change in land ownership.

3. Israeli Law in such matters overrides any old legal status to the contrary.

4. Israeli military muscle makes (1) thru (3) operative in the Real World.

Somebody else can respond to your juvenile and never-ending 'link?' response here.

If you believe (1) thru (4) above are incorrect, you are welcome to dispute them.

And I won't even ask you for a link.

So long as you argue the points using your own thoughts and words, rather than a boring and never-ending cut-and-paste recital of other people's thoughts.

...former legal status...

Former???

When did that legal status change?

 

[Kondor3]

"...Former??? When did that legal status change?"

The moment that the Jews took possession of the land, and passed statutes recognizing the change in ownership.

 

[P F Tinmore]

"...Former??? When did that legal status change?"

The moment that the Jews took possession of the land, and passed statutes recognizing the change in ownership.

Israeli local law trumps international law?

 

[Kondor3]

"...Former??? When did that legal status change?"

The moment that the Jews took possession of the land, and passed statutes recognizing the change in ownership.

Israeli local law trumps international law?

Yes.

Just as United States Law trumps International Law.

Just as Reality trumps Scholastic Fantasy.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The moment that the Jews took possession of the land, and passed statutes recognizing the change in ownership.

Israeli local law trumps international law?

Yes.

Just as United States Law trumps International Law.

Just as Reality trumps Scholastic Fantasy.

The US can pass laws for Brazil?

I don't think that would jive with international law.

 

[Kondor3]

Israeli local law trumps international law?

Yes.

Just as United States Law trumps International Law.

Just as Reality trumps Scholastic Fantasy.

The US can pass laws for Brazil?

I don't think that would jive with international law.

No.

The US cannot pass laws for Brazil.

But it CAN pass and enforce aws within its own borders that trump International Law.

After determining for itself what its borders should be.

Just as Israel has done.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Yes.

Just as United States Law trumps International Law.

Just as Reality trumps Scholastic Fantasy.

The US can pass laws for Brazil?

I don't think that would jive with international law.

No.

The US cannot pass laws for Brazil.

But it CAN pass and enforce aws within its own borders that trump International Law.

After determining for itself what its borders should be.

Just as Israel has done.

Oh really. Where are Israel's self defined borders?

BTW, I should not have said Brazil. Hawaii is a much better example. Hawaii was listed at the UN as a non self governing territory under US management. The US wanted to annex this land for its 50th state.

It was illegal for the US to annex this land without the approval of the indigenous population. They had to hold a referendum to get the approval of the people in order to annex that land even though they were not a sovereign state.

Was there a referendum for the Palestinians to approve the annexation of Palestinian territory by Israel?

 

[Kondor3]

The US can pass laws for Brazil?

I don't think that would jive with international law.

No.

The US cannot pass laws for Brazil.

But it CAN pass and enforce aws within its own borders that trump International Law.

After determining for itself what its borders should be.

Just as Israel has done.

Oh really...

Yes, Tinny, really.

"...Where are Israel's self defined borders?..."

I dunno. Go find an official Israeli government map that illustrates its self-defined territory and borders. Should be easy enough.

"...BTW, I should not have said Brazil. Hawaii is a much better example. Hawaii was listed at the UN as a non self governing territory under US management. The US wanted to annex this land for its 50th state. It was illegal for the US to annex this land without the approval of the indigenous population. They had to hold a referendum to get the approval of the people in order to annex that land even though they were not a sovereign state..."

Most US States admitted to the Union (after the original 13) held a referendum or constitutional vote of some kind - a tradition steeped in US rather than international law. Frankly, I would not be surprised to learn that relevant international law was inspired by US law and traditions regarding popular referendums on the subject of statehood.

"...Was there a referendum for the Palestinians to approve the annexation of Palestinian territory by Israel?"

No.

The Palestinian Jews incorporated within the confines of (a) the lands they already owned and controlled at the time of the declaration and (b) adding the lands which they took as spoils of war after the declaration.

And, given that neither the Palestinian Jews nor the Palestinian Muslims were as yet an organized and chartered polity (nation-state), neither were obliged to adhere to any UN guidelines or statute at the time of the formation of the State of Israel, and right up to the time of Israel's admittance to the United Nations.

The Palestinian Jews were under no obligation to sponsor a referendum of Palestinian Muslims in order to carve a Jewish State from the carcass of Mandate Palestine, because they were not (as yet) under any obligation to conduct such a referendum as of the point-in-time at which they declared Statehood and as of the point-in-time immediately prior to their admission to the United Nations.

The Palestinian Jews did not conduct such a referendum because they saw no need.

 

[Phoenall]

Look at my last link.

Did you bother to read it properly, as it says the exact opposite to what you believe about Palestine being a nation. It also states that the muslims are intent on gaining Israel through force and thumbing their noses at the UN charter. It also details the acquisition of land by force by Jordan that was allowed to get away with. Then it details the in fighting of the arab armies and how Jordan tried to use threats to steal part of Isreali land. On top of this the arab league formed a "Palestinian government" with no Palestinians involved . In fact the Palestinians were forced by Jordan to deny the arab league "Palestinian government". Also the name Palestine was abandoned by the muslims of the west bank and was changed to 'West Bank of the Jordanian Hashemite Kingdom'.
And how it was the inability of the arab league to work together and reach mutual decisions that led to the failure of the Palestinians getting their own nation.

As I said did you bother to read the link, or did you just read the headline and decided that it supported your RACIST POV

It also details the acquisition of land by force by Jordan that was allowed to get away with. Then it details the in fighting of the arab armies and how Jordan tried to use threats to steal part of Isreali land.

What this article does not mention was that the West bank was promised to Jordan if it would not attack Israel in the upcoming 1948 war.

On 17 November, twelve days before the UN met to decide the fate of Palestine, Golda Meir, representing the Jewish Agency in Moshe Sharett's absence, secretly met witk King Abdullah in Naharayim, on the river Jordan, and reached an agreement to divide Palestine between the Zionists and Abdullah.

Golda Meir meets King Abdullah, to agree to divide Palestine between the Zionists and Abdullah

Whose land was Jordan taking by force?

Wrong as the truth is the British agreed to allow Jordan to annexe the west bank and Jerusalem before the mandate was given up. The UN were not aware of this happening until much later.

And the devious muslims decided to take it all, and then try for Israel's land as well. Isn't that so ?

What you now call Palestine and the International city of Jerusalem.

 

[Phoenall]

What did this so called government do to protect the citizens from Israel driving them off their land and destroying their villages?

Did Israel win its land from the UN?

Did the filistans for that matter ?

The Palestinians did not have to win anything. They were already living in Palestine.

Nor did the Israeli's as they were also living in Palestine/Israel. But they had one LARGE advantage they had a nation state that was recognised by International treaty.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, we can address this (again).

Hmmm, why was it called the Palestine mandate?

(COMMENT)

This is a "regional name" much like "Appalachia" is a regional name in the US. Even after all this time, still within the region, there are such things. Right next door to the former Mandate of Palestine is Saudi Arabia; I'll use it as an example as it still uses the ancient administrative regional names.



The name of "Palestine" was the undefined Ottoman Region name handed down through the Treaty of Sevres. Like the other ancient Arab Governorates (examples cited above), the boundaries of Palestine do not necessarily coincide with region boundaries. The Administrative Region of Palestine covered a territory that stretched all the way to Mesopotamia (present day Iraq). You will also note that most of the boundaries in the larger Middle East and Persian Gulf region, is made of "straight line segments." This is because they come from surveys conducted by the European Powers.




(COMMENT)

Two facts impact this question. First, one has to understand who the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) was in the period covering the development of the November 1947 Recommendations and subsequent Resolution [GA/RES/181(II)].

The AHC was moribund during World War II. In November 1945 and May 1946 the Arab League reorganized the AHC, giving disproportionate representation to the Husaynis. The AHC testified before the United Nations in spring 1947 but boycotted the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, 1947 (UNSCOP) mission and was quoted in the New York Times as rejecting its partition plan as "impracticable and unjust" (9 Sept. 1947). After the United Nations endorsed partition, the AHC failed to design a Palestinian government or an effective military strategy. It tried to form an All-Palestine Government in Gaza in September 1948, but subsequently lost its leadership role. Amin alHusayni remained the nominal head, living in exile.





SOURCE: Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa | 2004 | Lesch, Ann M. | 700+ words | Copyright

In defiance of General Assembly Resolution 181(II), the AHC (a puppet regime of the Arab League) stated: "Arabs claim to have authority over all the area of Palestine as being the political representative of the overwhelming majority of the population. They regard Palestine a one unit. All forces that oppose majority wherever they may be are regarded as unlawful."

I do not really have to answer the question, the Arab League, through the AHC Puppet, answers the question.

Most Respectfully,
R

Holy verbosity, Batman! Could you condense all that down to something more relative to my post?

He did answer your question, learn to read.
And Rocco gives a lot of effort to answer your questions, and back his comments up with links (unlike you), and then you give him your usual responses.

If you don't like the answer , don't ask the question

 

[Phoenall]

I already showed that the Palestinian declaration did encroach on anyone else's territory.

So were was the nation of Israel in all this, what provision did the arab league and its minions make for Israel that had been granted the same status as Syria, Iraq, iran, Lebanon and trans Jordan by the same entity and in the same manner ?

Excellent question.

Perhaps you could post a 1948 map of Israel showing where it was during all this.

See the UN partition plan of the area as that defined the May 1948 borders of Israel, as of their declaration of independence. This was later mollified by the cease fire line of 1949 which showed that Israel had lost land to force. Once the UN had set this precedence they could not at a later date alter their minds.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, we can address this (again).

Hmmm, why was it called the Palestine mandate?

(COMMENT)

This is a "regional name" much like "Appalachia" is a regional name in the US. Even after all this time, still within the region, there are such things. Right next door to the former Mandate of Palestine is Saudi Arabia; I'll use it as an example as it still uses the ancient administrative regional names.



The name of "Palestine" was the undefined Ottoman Region name handed down through the Treaty of Sevres. Like the other ancient Arab Governorates (examples cited above), the boundaries of Palestine do not necessarily coincide with region boundaries. The Administrative Region of Palestine covered a territory that stretched all the way to Mesopotamia (present day Iraq). You will also note that most of the boundaries in the larger Middle East and Persian Gulf region, is made of "straight line segments." This is because they come from surveys conducted by the European Powers.




(COMMENT)

Two facts impact this question. First, one has to understand who the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) was in the period covering the development of the November 1947 Recommendations and subsequent Resolution [GA/RES/181(II)].

The AHC was moribund during World War II. In November 1945 and May 1946 the Arab League reorganized the AHC, giving disproportionate representation to the Husaynis. The AHC testified before the United Nations in spring 1947 but boycotted the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, 1947 (UNSCOP) mission and was quoted in the New York Times as rejecting its partition plan as "impracticable and unjust" (9 Sept. 1947). After the United Nations endorsed partition, the AHC failed to design a Palestinian government or an effective military strategy. It tried to form an All-Palestine Government in Gaza in September 1948, but subsequently lost its leadership role. Amin alHusayni remained the nominal head, living in exile.





SOURCE: Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa | 2004 | Lesch, Ann M. | 700+ words | Copyright

In defiance of General Assembly Resolution 181(II), the AHC (a puppet regime of the Arab League) stated: "Arabs claim to have authority over all the area of Palestine as being the political representative of the overwhelming majority of the population. They regard Palestine a one unit. All forces that oppose majority wherever they may be are regarded as unlawful."

I do not really have to answer the question, the Arab League, through the AHC Puppet, answers the question.

Most Respectfully,
R

Holy verbosity, Batman! Could you condense all that down to something more relative to my post?

It could not be any clearer than it is, the land of Palestine is an undefined area in the M.E. that is without borders or national identity. It extends over Egypt, Saudi, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon in part or whole. This land was given in mandate to two nations to administer, namely Britain and France. France created Lebanon, Iraq and syria on their portion of the mandate while Britain created syria trans Jordan and Israel on theirs.