I will not Bow!

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There is a misunderstanding here.

WHEREAS the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them;

And whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home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;

The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.

11.--(1) The High Commissioner may, with the approval of a Secretary of State, by Proclamation divide Palestine into administrative divisions or districts in such manner and with such subdivisions as may be convenient for purposes of administration describing the boundaries thereof and assigning names thereto.​

SOURCE: The Palestine Order in Council

Frequently wikipedia is a good source but not everything is accurate. When it said "partition of the British Mandate into two states." I question this article. The British Mandate was not a place, it was an administration assigned to Palestine.

How can you divide an administration into two states.

Obviously when they said the British Mandate, they were referring to the British Mandate of Palestine, or Mandatory Palestine.

Nothing you said changes the fact that Resolution 181 WAS actually a factor in both DOI (Israel and Palestine)

(COMMENT)

Of course the Resolution was a factor in both the DoI Israel (1948) and Palestine (1988). It was a element of precedence cited in both documents.

There are people that would like to dispose of GA/RES/181(II), as a political inconvenience. But it is a historical document used by both sides of the ongoing dispute. Surely there are some aspects that have been overtaken by events. But is it the principle document that initially established the Jewish State and the Arab State.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians rejected the resolution outright.

Britain (the assigned mandate) refused to implement it. The Security Council would not impose it.

Israel said that it accepted it but thumbed its nose at the tenets of the resolution.

How can you keep bringing it up like it has some meaning?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are asking that they wright it in your fashion.


(COMMENT)

That was the acceptance of the "Jewish State." They may not have had it written to your satisfaction, but it was accepted and understood by everyone else. The phrase "Jewish State" was well defined in the Resolution; complete with boundaries.

It is you that is blowing smoke.

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but when Israel lied about accepting resolution 181 it was already attacking Palestinians outside its allotted territory before its declaration.

You merely assume that Israel accepted resolution 181 but their actions say they didn't.

Everything points to resolution 181 having nothing to do with the creation of Israel.

BOTH parties were attacking each other ! You're so incredibly biased !

In fact, the Palestinians were the first ones to attack; 1929 Hebron Massacre

Pffft, Israeli propaganda.

The conflict started about the time Britain started imposing the foreign Balfour declaration on Palestine against the wishes of the native population.

 

[toastman]

OK, but when Israel lied about accepting resolution 181 it was already attacking Palestinians outside its allotted territory before its declaration.

You merely assume that Israel accepted resolution 181 but their actions say they didn't.

Everything points to resolution 181 having nothing to do with the creation of Israel.

BOTH parties were attacking each other ! You're so incredibly biased !

In fact, the Palestinians were the first ones to attack; 1929 Hebron Massacre

Pffft, Israeli propaganda.

The conflict started about the time Britain started imposing the foreign Balfour declaration on Palestine against the wishes of the native population.

Actually, your statement is Palestinian propaganda

BOTH sides were fighting against eachother...FACT

The Palestinians committed the first massacre.....FACT

Now, about your sources concerning the 1948 war and the events preceding it...got links ?

 

[percysunshine]

Oops.....I thought this was the anti-bowling thread.

.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There is a misunderstanding here.

WHEREAS the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them;

And whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 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;

The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.

11.--(1) The High Commissioner may, with the approval of a Secretary of State, by Proclamation divide Palestine into administrative divisions or districts in such manner and with such subdivisions as may be convenient for purposes of administration describing the boundaries thereof and assigning names thereto.​

SOURCE: The Palestine Order in Council

Obviously when they said the British Mandate, they were referring to the British Mandate of Palestine, or Mandatory Palestine.

Nothing you said changes the fact that Resolution 181 WAS actually a factor in both DOI (Israel and Palestine)

(COMMENT)

Of course the Resolution was a factor in both the DoI Israel (1948) and Palestine (1988). It was a element of precedence cited in both documents.

There are people that would like to dispose of GA/RES/181(II), as a political inconvenience. But it is a historical document used by both sides of the ongoing dispute. Surely there are some aspects that have been overtaken by events. But is it the principle document that initially established the Jewish State and the Arab State.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians rejected the resolution outright.

Britain (the assigned mandate) refused to implement it. The Security Council would not impose it.

Israel said that it accepted it but thumbed its nose at the tenets of the resolution.

How can you keep bringing it up like it has some meaning?

Are you saying again that resolution 181 had no meaning for EITHER DOI ??

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, we now agree, that the Jewish Agency made the acceptance. Now we are down to a different issue about the honesty and integrity of the acceptance.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are asking that they wright it in your fashion.

OK, but you are dancing around my question.

Where in Israel's declaration of independence did they say that they accepted the proposed resolution 181 borders?

Quote the passage.

(COMMENT)

That was the acceptance of the "Jewish State." They may not have had it written to your satisfaction, but it was accepted and understood by everyone else. The phrase "Jewish State" was well defined in the Resolution; complete with boundaries.

It is you that is blowing smoke.

OK, but when Israel lied about accepting resolution 181 it was already attacking Palestinians outside its allotted territory before its declaration.

(COMMENT)

OK we agree on the acceptance. The ongoing civil war in the month preceding the Declaration of Independence (DoI) is a matter of record. The

You merely assume that Israel accepted resolution 181 but their actions say they didn't.

(COMMENT)

Their actions were prompted by provocative actions taken on the part of the hostile Arab community. The State of Israel was not an entity prior to it DoI. But there was a quasi-Civil War in progress initiated by the Arab Community. It should be noted that the Arab Forces were already moving into attack positions months before hand. The Arab League was already in the Territory by March, two months before Israel Independence.

Everything points to resolution 181 having nothing to do with the creation of Israel.

(COMMENT)

We disagree here.

On May 14 1948, the independence of the State of Israel was proclaimed by the National Council of the Jewish people in Palestine by virtue of the natural and historic right of the Jewish people to independence in its own sovereign State and in pursuance of the General Assembly resolution of November 29, 1947. Since that date Israel has been consolidated administratively and defended itself successfully against the aggression of neighbouring States. It has so far achieved recognition by nineteen Powers.

Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,

SOURCE: A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949

SOURCE: S/1093 29 November 1948

While it is true that new States declare themselves sovereign, it is also true that these political action are often done in cooperation and coordination with other powers and organizations.

Again, you will not that both the Jewish State (1948) and the Arab State (1988) both cite the Resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947 as of importance to their individual DoI's.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There is a misunderstanding here.

​

(COMMENT)

Of course the Resolution was a factor in both the DoI Israel (1948) and Palestine (1988). It was a element of precedence cited in both documents.

There are people that would like to dispose of GA/RES/181(II), as a political inconvenience. But it is a historical document used by both sides of the ongoing dispute. Surely there are some aspects that have been overtaken by events. But is it the principle document that initially established the Jewish State and the Arab State.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Palestinians rejected the resolution outright.

Britain (the assigned mandate) refused to implement it. The Security Council would not impose it.

Israel said that it accepted it but thumbed its nose at the tenets of the resolution.

How can you keep bringing it up like it has some meaning?

Are you saying again that resolution 181 had no meaning for EITHER DOI ??

Correctomundo!

 

[toastman]

The Palestinians rejected the resolution outright.

Britain (the assigned mandate) refused to implement it. The Security Council would not impose it.

Israel said that it accepted it but thumbed its nose at the tenets of the resolution.

How can you keep bringing it up like it has some meaning?

Are you saying again that resolution 181 had no meaning for EITHER DOI ??

Correctomundo!

So the links that I showed you in which say the EXACT opposite are wrong ?

 

[toastman]

Has someone kept a record on how many of Tinmore's claims have been flushed down the toilet?? I've lost count.

Off the top of my head:


- Israel having no borders
- Resolution 181 being irrelevant for the declaration of Independence for both Israel and 'Palestine'
- That there never was a civil war in Mandatory Palestine
- That Israel has no land
- That no one won the 1948 Arab - Israeli war
- All of Israel being occupied
- That the Palestinian declared independence in 1948
- That Palestine was a country for the Palestinians established in 1924


Links have been provided for each of the above lies that say the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Tinmore says, whereas Tinmore has not provided valid information to prove his claims.

Seems like Tinmore is right, and everyone else is wrong

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, we now agree, that the Jewish Agency made the acceptance. Now we are down to a different issue about the honesty and integrity of the acceptance.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are asking that they wright it in your fashion.


(COMMENT)

That was the acceptance of the "Jewish State." They may not have had it written to your satisfaction, but it was accepted and understood by everyone else. The phrase "Jewish State" was well defined in the Resolution; complete with boundaries.

It is you that is blowing smoke.

(COMMENT)

OK we agree on the acceptance. The ongoing civil war in the month preceding the Declaration of Independence (DoI) is a matter of record. The


(COMMENT)

Their actions were prompted by provocative actions taken on the part of the hostile Arab community. The State of Israel was not an entity prior to it DoI. But there was a quasi-Civil War in progress initiated by the Arab Community. It should be noted that the Arab Forces were already moving into attack positions months before hand. The Arab League was already in the Territory by March, two months before Israel Independence.


(COMMENT)

We disagree here.

On May 14 1948, the independence of the State of Israel was proclaimed by the National Council of the Jewish people in Palestine by virtue of the natural and historic right of the Jewish people to independence in its own sovereign State and in pursuance of the General Assembly resolution of November 29, 1947. Since that date Israel has been consolidated administratively and defended itself successfully against the aggression of neighbouring States. It has so far achieved recognition by nineteen Powers.


SOURCE: S/1093 29 November 1948

While it is true that new States declare themselves sovereign, it is also true that these political action are often done in cooperation and coordination with other powers and organizations.

Again, you will not that both the Jewish State (1948) and the Arab State (1988) both cite the Resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947 as of importance to their individual DoI's.

Most Respectfully,
R

Their actions were prompted by provocative actions taken on the part of the hostile Arab community. The State of Israel was not an entity prior to it DoI. But there was a quasi-Civil War in progress initiated by the Arab Community.

Israeli propaganda.

The Palestinians were fighting against the foreign takeover of their country.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, we now agree, that the Jewish Agency made the acceptance. Now we are down to a different issue about the honesty and integrity of the acceptance.

(COMMENT)

OK we agree on the acceptance. The ongoing civil war in the month preceding the Declaration of Independence (DoI) is a matter of record. The


(COMMENT)

Their actions were prompted by provocative actions taken on the part of the hostile Arab community. The State of Israel was not an entity prior to it DoI. But there was a quasi-Civil War in progress initiated by the Arab Community. It should be noted that the Arab Forces were already moving into attack positions months before hand. The Arab League was already in the Territory by March, two months before Israel Independence.


(COMMENT)

We disagree here.



While it is true that new States declare themselves sovereign, it is also true that these political action are often done in cooperation and coordination with other powers and organizations.

Again, you will not that both the Jewish State (1948) and the Arab State (1988) both cite the Resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947 as of importance to their individual DoI's.

Most Respectfully,
R

Their actions were prompted by provocative actions taken on the part of the hostile Arab community. The State of Israel was not an entity prior to it DoI. But there was a quasi-Civil War in progress initiated by the Arab Community.

Israeli propaganda.

The Palestinians were fighting against the foreign takeover of their country.

LOL you're so full of shit.

IF you;re right, then please show me the link concerning the 1948 Arab ISraeli war and the events preceding it. I've asked you this 10 times

Oh and BTW, there was no country to TAKEOVER. Not only that, but the European Jews were invited and their immigration was fascilitated by the RULERS OF THE LAND. The Palestinian Arabs had no right to say weather or weather not the British could help the Jews immigrate

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Let's look at this.

The Palestinians rejected the resolution outright.

(COMMENT)

Yes, the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), of the Arab League, rejected it. That has no impact on the ability and competency of the Jewish Agency to accept its potion of the Partition offer.

F. ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED NATIONS

When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations.

SOURCE: A/RES/181(II) 29 November 1947

Neither the Jewish Agency or the AHC could prevent the other from declaring independence. Each had the right to self-determination, independent of the others preferences.

Britain (the assigned mandate) refused to implement it. The Security Council would not impose it.

(COMMENT)

It was not the duty of the Mandatory to implement GA/RES/181(II). That responsibility was delegated to the Security Council through the UN Palestine Commission (UNPC).

The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;

The administration of Palestine shall, as the mandatory Power withdraws its armed forces, be progressively turned over to the Commission; which shall act in conformity with the recommendations of the General Assembly, under the guidance of the Security Council. The mandatory Power shall to the fullest possible extent co-ordinate its plans for withdrawal with the plans of the Commission to take over and administer areas which have been evacuated.

On its arrival in Palestine the Commission shall proceed to carry out measures for the establishment of the frontiers of the Arab and Jewish States and the City of Jerusalem in accordance with the general lines of the recommendations of the General Assembly on the partition of Palestine. Nevertheless, the boundaries as described in part II of this plan are to be modified in such a way that village areas as a rule will not be divided by state boundaries unless pressing reasons make that necessary.

During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."

SOURCE: PAL/169 17 May 1948

SOURCE: A/RES/181(II) 29 November 1947

Israel said that it accepted it but thumbed its nose at the tenets of the resolution.

(COMMENT)

Interesting, given that less than six hours elapsed between the DoI and the attack by the Arab League Armies. How could it have time to thumb its nose at anything?

How can you keep bringing it up like it has some meaning?

(COMMENT)

Well actually, it is the Palestinians that make the point. I invite you to read the entire letter, but clearly, the Palestinians present a case for the importance and impact of the Resolution.

For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.

SOURCE: A/53/879 S/1999/334 25 March 1999

Again, there are those on the Palestinian side of the equation that would like to see the Resolution buried for the purpose of political expedience, it is still a matter of importance; being used by both sides.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, here we are again.

The Palestinians were fighting against the foreign takeover of their country.

(COMMENT)

Who's country?

The Palestinians had no country.

The representative designated by the Government of the United Kingdom was Sir Alexander Cadogan. The representative designated by the Jewish Agency for Palestine was Mr. Moshe Shertok. As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January:

“ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE IS DETERMINED PERSIST IN REJECTION PARTITION AND IN REFUSAL RECOGNIZE UNO RESOLUTION THIS RESPECT AND ANYTHING DERIVING THEREFROM. FOR THESE REASONS IT IS UNABLE ACCEPT INVITATION”​

No further communication has been addressed to or received from the Arab Higher Committee by the Commission. The Commission will, at the appropriate time, set forth in a separate document its views with regard to the implementations of this refusal by the Arab Higher Committee.

SOURCE: A/AC.21/7 29 January 1948

There is some mistake. The perspectives differ.

Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.

SOURCE: A/AC.21/9 S/676 16 February 1948

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

OK, we now agree, that the Jewish Agency made the acceptance. Now we are down to a different issue about the honesty and integrity of the acceptance.




Israeli propaganda.

The Palestinians were fighting against the foreign takeover of their country.

LOL you're so full of shit.

IF you;re right, then please show me the link concerning the 1948 Arab ISraeli war and the events preceding it. I've asked you this 10 times

Oh and BTW, there was no country to TAKEOVER. Not only that, but the European Jews were invited and their immigration was fascilitated by the RULERS OF THE LAND. The Palestinian Arabs had no right to say weather or weather not the British could help the Jews immigrate

You really do not want to know but here.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm7dMhE80dw]Alnakba English P1 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[aris2chat]

I await your response.

Legal justification for the declaration was based on United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947, which provided for the termination and partition of the British Mandate into two states. Despite the proclamation of the State of Palestine, at the time the Palestine Liberation Organization did not exercise control over any territory,[4] and designated Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine,[5] which was under Israeli control and claimed by it as Israel's capital. Though recognised by over 100 countries, no de facto independent Palestinian state has come into existence in the Palestinian territories.

Palestinian Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Frequently wikipedia is a good source but not everything is accurate. When it said "partition of the British Mandate into two states." I question this article. The British Mandate was not a place, it was an administration assigned to Palestine.

How can you divide an administration into two states.

for students it can be a place to start their research. For bloggers, it might be a place for "quick facts" but double checking facts elsewhere helps.

 

[Phoenall]

LOL you're so full of shit.

IF you;re right, then please show me the link concerning the 1948 Arab ISraeli war and the events preceding it. I've asked you this 10 times

Oh and BTW, there was no country to TAKEOVER. Not only that, but the European Jews were invited and their immigration was fascilitated by the RULERS OF THE LAND. The Palestinian Arabs had no right to say weather or weather not the British could help the Jews immigrate

You really do not want to know but here.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm7dMhE80dw]Alnakba English P1 - YouTube[/ame]

Care to condense down just what your long winded Aljazeera video says, apart from that Britain ruled Palestine and granted the inhabitants British Palestinian citizenship.

 

[docmauser1]

LOL you're so full of shit. IF you;re right, then please show me the link concerning the 1948 Arab ISraeli war and the events preceding it. I've asked you this 10 times
Oh and BTW, there was no country to TAKEOVER. Not only that, but the European Jews were invited and their immigration was fascilitated by the RULERS OF THE LAND. The Palestinian Arabs had no right to say weather or weather not the British could help the Jews immigrate

You really do not want to know but here. Alnakba English P1 - YouTube

Palliwood?

 

[P F Tinmore]

You really do not want to know but here.

Alnakba English P1 - YouTube

Care to condense down just what your long winded Aljazeera video says, apart from that Britain ruled Palestine and granted the inhabitants British Palestinian citizenship.

I knew you didn't really want to know.You asked for sources. There is one. It is the lead up to the 1948 war.

 

[docmauser1]

I knew you didn't really want to know.You asked for sources. There is one. It is the lead up to the 1948 war.

Ahh, palliwood.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Yes, the Arab Higher Committee (AHC), of the Arab League, rejected it. (resolution 181) That has no impact on the ability and competency of the Jewish Agency to accept its potion of the Partition offer.

That differs from what the British and Security Council said.