Indigenous Palestinians Were JEWS

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

While you base conjecture that the use of conquest has changed, it has very little to do with the decision. After all, in the surrender of the Ottoman Empire territories was not illegal in the post World War I era.

theliq, et al,

The reliance on the concept of "indigenous" (rights or population) is a slippery slope.

MJB12741,

The definition of "Indigenous People(s)" is tricky to say the least. The definition is often self serving.

Objectively, there are two very key issues that must be addressed before a determination can be made on the assignment of the "Indigenous People" label.

• How far back in time are you accepting evidence of a culture with historical ties to the territory?
• How long does it take for a culture to be in place before it can be considered "Indigenous?"
​

(COMMENT)

There is NO Universally accepted definition for "Indigenous People." Why? (Rhetorical) Simply because it raises difficult questions that cannot be settled accurately by law.

The Ohio Scenario

If the Canadians mount a successful amphibious assault from Ontario and captures the State of Ohio, who are considered the "indigenous population?"
OR, is it still the Iroquois, Miami, and Shawnee Tribes that inhabited the Ohio Valley (territory west of the Appalachian Mountains) in the time of the French and Indian Wars?
OR, was it the first American Settlers that moving west and encroaching on the indian inhabitants?
​

It is tied up in the nebulas phrase "historical ties to a particular territory;" or as the Allied Powers said at San Remo: "the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine." In 1920, when the Allied Powers were making decisions on the apportionment of former Ottoman Empire territory, they saw the history of the territory of Palestine as very transient and evolving. The territory of Palestine was a sliver of land that was controlled by numerous different Empires, Countries, and Cultural Authorities [Paleo-Canaanites, Amorites, Ancient Egyptians, Israelites, Moabites, Ammonites, Tjeker, Philistines, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, (Umayads, Abbasids, Seljuqs, Fatimids), French Crusaders, (Ayyubids, Mameluks, Ottoman Turks), and soon the British]. (List from Wikipedia --- History of Palestine) This is what the Allied Powers saw in the way of History. This is part of the thought process that ultimately lead them to the decisions they made.

Yes, we also consider cultural and historical distinction, ethnic groups associated, and a share sense of identity. But in the end, you have to ask yourself, how long do you look back in time to determine "indigenous?"

Most Respectfully,
R

well I can tell you for nothing Rocco,Jews were definately sic NOT THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF THIS LAND.......NOT BY A LONG HAUL..steve and you know it

(COMMENT)

The Anglo-Saxons of England were the members of Germanic-speaking groups who migrated (≈ AD 400 to AD 600) to the southern half of the island from continental Europe, and their cultural. Then, in about ≈ 1066, Duke William of Normandy invaded England (from France), ending ≈ 500 years of Saxon rule (Battle of Hastings.). Today, who is the indigenous population? Its a rhetorical question because it doesn't matter.

What this does indicate is that at some point, just as the Anglo-Saxons became the "indigenous population" over the post Roman era inhabitants, --- so it was that the Normans assimilated the survivors and they mix became indigenous. How long does it take to become the "indigenous population?"

Most Respectfully,
R

One thing I would like to point out. Hundreds of years ago military conquest was not illegal. It is now. So, recent colonial projects cannot be considered indigenous.

(COMMENT)

Colonial Projects and Cultural Assimilation are entirely different from that of making a determination as to who is indigenous. The fact of the matter is that the Ottoman Empire:

Unconditionally surrendered to the Allied Powers.

• Article 16, Armistice of Mudros
• Article 132, Treaty of Sevres
• Article 16, Treaty of Laussanne

The Allied Powers had the Authority to initiate the implementation of the Jewish National Home.
The Allied Powers decided to initiate immigration procedures.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

No, the Allied Powers had no right to implement the Jewish National Home as it contravened articles 20 and 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, i.e. the Balfour Declaration was null and void when the Britain signed the Covenant.

"ARTICLE 20.

The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.


ARTICLE 22.

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.....communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire (which included the Christian and Muslim Palestinians, ed.)have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory. - See more at: League of Nations covenant - Peace Treaty of Versailles, Peace Conference text/Non-UN document (28 April 1919)

And still the muslims cant show that they are capable of standing by themselves

 

[Phoenall]

Rehmani, Phoenall, MJB12741, et al,

I really don't think that this argument about who is an "indigenous population" to the territory is going anywhere.

(COMMENT)

You can read and research all the various studies concerning the sample , analysis and testing of Mitochondrial DNA (MtDNA) of the Jewish People and still not have a definitive biological answer to what is basically a political question.

The attempt of these various DNA studies is to lend some scientific molecular genetic research credibility to the genetic ancestry of contemporary Jewish populations and whether there is some reasonable evidence demonstrated that their is a relationship to the ancient Israelites of the Middle East that lived two or three millennium ago. I'm not even sure that this is relevant; let alone a question that can be answered.

The establishment of the Jewish National Home in the Middle East was a decision based on the observation that the Jewish People needed a "safe haven" if the culture was remain viable and survive. And it was determined that basically, it was more important and beneficial to protect and safeguard the Jewish Culture from further attrition at the hands of present and future anti-Semitic regimes, to prevent the continuation of the cultural devastation as demonstrated by the historical indifference of most Europeans --- and --- the open collaboration of political regimes to target and murder of Jews to achieve some political end.

Even if there was a clear understanding as to what is meant by the "indigenous population" --- and --- when a migrating population or an immigrating population has assimilated enough to be identified with the indigenous population; would it really matter if the objective to to save a culture in distress?

Most Respectfully,
R

I really don't think that this argument about who is an "indigenous population" to the territory is going anywhere.​

All of the people, Muslims, Christians, and Jews, who normally lived in Palestine when it was created after WWI became citizens of Palestine. That is the standard procedure. All of those new countries did the same thing.

There is nothing to dispute.

Actually, you're befuddled, as usual.

Palestine was the description of an undefined, noncontiguous land area. That's why it's comical to read of islamists referring to "Pal'istanians". That label for an invented people with an invented national identify was the creation of the now, thankfully dead, Arafat.

The Treaty of Lausanne came into force on August 6, 1924. It stated that the Ottoman nationals who were "habitually residents" of what became Palestine "will become ipso facto" nationals of that state.

The Palestine Citizenship Order was enacted by Britain on 24 July 1925.[4] It began by granting Palestinian citizenship to "Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925"

History of Palestinian nationality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Just like I said.

No it doesn't try reading it again

Rehmani, Phoenall, MJB12741, et al,

I really don't think that this argument about who is an "indigenous population" to the territory is going anywhere.

(COMMENT)

You can read and research all the various studies concerning the sample , analysis and testing of Mitochondrial DNA (MtDNA) of the Jewish People and still not have a definitive biological answer to what is basically a political question.

The attempt of these various DNA studies is to lend some scientific molecular genetic research credibility to the genetic ancestry of contemporary Jewish populations and whether there is some reasonable evidence demonstrated that their is a relationship to the ancient Israelites of the Middle East that lived two or three millennium ago. I'm not even sure that this is relevant; let alone a question that can be answered.

The establishment of the Jewish National Home in the Middle East was a decision based on the observation that the Jewish People needed a "safe haven" if the culture was remain viable and survive. And it was determined that basically, it was more important and beneficial to protect and safeguard the Jewish Culture from further attrition at the hands of present and future anti-Semitic regimes, to prevent the continuation of the cultural devastation as demonstrated by the historical indifference of most Europeans --- and --- the open collaboration of political regimes to target and murder of Jews to achieve some political end.

Even if there was a clear understanding as to what is meant by the "indigenous population" --- and --- when a migrating population or an immigrating population has assimilated enough to be identified with the indigenous population; would it really matter if the objective to to save a culture in distress?

Most Respectfully,
R

I really don't think that this argument about who is an "indigenous population" to the territory is going anywhere.​

All of the people, Muslims, Christians, and Jews, who normally lived in Palestine when it was created after WWI became citizens of Palestine. That is the standard procedure. All of those new countries did the same thing.

There is nothing to dispute.

Actually, you're befuddled, as usual.

Palestine was the description of an undefined, noncontiguous land area. That's why it's comical to read of islamists referring to "Pal'istanians". That label for an invented people with an invented national identify was the creation of the now, thankfully dead, Arafat.

The Treaty of Lausanne came into force on August 6, 1924. It stated that the Ottoman nationals who were "habitually residents" of what became Palestine "will become ipso facto" nationals of that state.

The Palestine Citizenship Order was enacted by Britain on 24 July 1925.[4] It began by granting Palestinian citizenship to "Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925"

History of Palestinian nationality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Just like I said.

What state would that be then

state if of Palestine dumb.

So who was its ruler, what was its money, where was its capital, what was its flag. And all these had to be in place before 1917 when it was part of the ottoman empire ?

 

[Phoenall]

theliq, et al,

The reliance on the concept of "indigenous" (rights or population) is a slippery slope.

MJB12741,

The definition of "Indigenous People(s)" is tricky to say the least. The definition is often self serving.

Objectively, there are two very key issues that must be addressed before a determination can be made on the assignment of the "Indigenous People" label.

• How far back in time are you accepting evidence of a culture with historical ties to the territory?
• How long does it take for a culture to be in place before it can be considered "Indigenous?"
​

Who’s Indigenous?

(COMMENT)

There is NO Universally accepted definition for "Indigenous People." Why? (Rhetorical) Simply because it raises difficult questions that cannot be settled accurately by law.

The Ohio Scenario

If the Canadians mount a successful amphibious assault from Ontario and captures the State of Ohio, who are considered the "indigenous population?"
OR, is it still the Iroquois, Miami, and Shawnee Tribes that inhabited the Ohio Valley (territory west of the Appalachian Mountains) in the time of the French and Indian Wars?
OR, was it the first American Settlers that moving west and encroaching on the indian inhabitants?
​

It is tied up in the nebulas phrase "historical ties to a particular territory;" or as the Allied Powers said at San Remo: "the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine." In 1920, when the Allied Powers were making decisions on the apportionment of former Ottoman Empire territory, they saw the history of the territory of Palestine as very transient and evolving. The territory of Palestine was a sliver of land that was controlled by numerous different Empires, Countries, and Cultural Authorities [Paleo-Canaanites, Amorites, Ancient Egyptians, Israelites, Moabites, Ammonites, Tjeker, Philistines, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, (Umayads, Abbasids, Seljuqs, Fatimids), French Crusaders, (Ayyubids, Mameluks, Ottoman Turks), and soon the British]. (List from Wikipedia --- History of Palestine) This is what the Allied Powers saw in the way of History. This is part of the thought process that ultimately lead them to the decisions they made.

Yes, we also consider cultural and historical distinction, ethnic groups associated, and a share sense of identity. But in the end, you have to ask yourself, how long do you look back in time to determine "indigenous?"

Most Respectfully,
R

well I can tell you for nothing Rocco,Jews were definately sic NOT THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF THIS LAND.......NOT BY A LONG HAUL..steve and you know it

(COMMENT)

The Anglo-Saxons of England were the members of Germanic-speaking groups who migrated (≈ AD 400 to AD 600) to the southern half of the island from continental Europe, and their cultural. Then, in about ≈ 1066, Duke William of Normandy invaded England (from France), ending ≈ 500 years of Saxon rule (Battle of Hastings.). Today, who is the indigenous population? Its a rhetorical question because it doesn't matter.

What this does indicate is that at some point, just as the Anglo-Saxons became the "indigenous population" over the post Roman era inhabitants, --- so it was that the Normans assimilated the survivors and they mix became indigenous. How long does it take to become the "indigenous population?"

Most Respectfully,
R

One thing I would like to point out. Hundreds of years ago military conquest was not illegal. It is now. So, recent colonial projects cannot be considered indigenous.

Want to try and put a date on when military conquest became illegal then

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

While you base conjecture that the use of conquest has changed, it has very little to do with the decision. After all, in the surrender of the Ottoman Empire territories was not illegal in the post World War I era.

theliq, et al,

The reliance on the concept of "indigenous" (rights or population) is a slippery slope.

MJB12741,

The definition of "Indigenous People(s)" is tricky to say the least. The definition is often self serving.

Objectively, there are two very key issues that must be addressed before a determination can be made on the assignment of the "Indigenous People" label.

• How far back in time are you accepting evidence of a culture with historical ties to the territory?
• How long does it take for a culture to be in place before it can be considered "Indigenous?"
​

(COMMENT)

There is NO Universally accepted definition for "Indigenous People." Why? (Rhetorical) Simply because it raises difficult questions that cannot be settled accurately by law.

The Ohio Scenario

If the Canadians mount a successful amphibious assault from Ontario and captures the State of Ohio, who are considered the "indigenous population?"
OR, is it still the Iroquois, Miami, and Shawnee Tribes that inhabited the Ohio Valley (territory west of the Appalachian Mountains) in the time of the French and Indian Wars?
OR, was it the first American Settlers that moving west and encroaching on the indian inhabitants?
​

It is tied up in the nebulas phrase "historical ties to a particular territory;" or as the Allied Powers said at San Remo: "the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine." In 1920, when the Allied Powers were making decisions on the apportionment of former Ottoman Empire territory, they saw the history of the territory of Palestine as very transient and evolving. The territory of Palestine was a sliver of land that was controlled by numerous different Empires, Countries, and Cultural Authorities [Paleo-Canaanites, Amorites, Ancient Egyptians, Israelites, Moabites, Ammonites, Tjeker, Philistines, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, (Umayads, Abbasids, Seljuqs, Fatimids), French Crusaders, (Ayyubids, Mameluks, Ottoman Turks), and soon the British]. (List from Wikipedia --- History of Palestine) This is what the Allied Powers saw in the way of History. This is part of the thought process that ultimately lead them to the decisions they made.

Yes, we also consider cultural and historical distinction, ethnic groups associated, and a share sense of identity. But in the end, you have to ask yourself, how long do you look back in time to determine "indigenous?"

Most Respectfully,
R

well I can tell you for nothing Rocco,Jews were definately sic NOT THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF THIS LAND.......NOT BY A LONG HAUL..steve and you know it

(COMMENT)

The Anglo-Saxons of England were the members of Germanic-speaking groups who migrated (≈ AD 400 to AD 600) to the southern half of the island from continental Europe, and their cultural. Then, in about ≈ 1066, Duke William of Normandy invaded England (from France), ending ≈ 500 years of Saxon rule (Battle of Hastings.). Today, who is the indigenous population? Its a rhetorical question because it doesn't matter.

What this does indicate is that at some point, just as the Anglo-Saxons became the "indigenous population" over the post Roman era inhabitants, --- so it was that the Normans assimilated the survivors and they mix became indigenous. How long does it take to become the "indigenous population?"

Most Respectfully,
R

One thing I would like to point out. Hundreds of years ago military conquest was not illegal. It is now. So, recent colonial projects cannot be considered indigenous.

(COMMENT)

Colonial Projects and Cultural Assimilation are entirely different from that of making a determination as to who is indigenous. The fact of the matter is that the Ottoman Empire:

Unconditionally surrendered to the Allied Powers.

• Article 16, Armistice of Mudros
• Article 132, Treaty of Sevres
• Article 16, Treaty of Laussanne

The Allied Powers had the Authority to initiate the implementation of the Jewish National Home.
The Allied Powers decided to initiate immigration procedures.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but neither the LoN nor the Mandates acquired any land. They held the land in trust for the inhabitants of the respective newly created states.

Where does it say that, as you know treaties are not open ended to the point that they can be interpreted many ways. What they say is what they mean. And in this case the sovereignty of the land was passed on to the LoN , not the inhabitants of the land. This meant that under the Laws prevalent at the time the LoN could dispose of the land as they saw fit. If the mandates did not acquire any land then how could they pass it on to the people who now rule ?

 

[Phoenall]

Rehmani, Phoenall, MJB12741, et al,

I really don't think that this argument about who is an "indigenous population" to the territory is going anywhere.

Rubbish!

(COMMENT)

You can read and research all the various studies concerning the sample , analysis and testing of Mitochondrial DNA (MtDNA) of the Jewish People and still not have a definitive biological answer to what is basically a political question.

The attempt of these various DNA studies is to lend some scientific molecular genetic research credibility to the genetic ancestry of contemporary Jewish populations and whether there is some reasonable evidence demonstrated that their is a relationship to the ancient Israelites of the Middle East that lived two or three millennium ago. I'm not even sure that this is relevant; let alone a question that can be answered.

The establishment of the Jewish National Home in the Middle East was a decision based on the observation that the Jewish People needed a "safe haven" if the culture was remain viable and survive. And it was determined that basically, it was more important and beneficial to protect and safeguard the Jewish Culture from further attrition at the hands of present and future anti-Semitic regimes, to prevent the continuation of the cultural devastation as demonstrated by the historical indifference of most Europeans --- and --- the open collaboration of political regimes to target and murder of Jews to achieve some political end.

Even if there was a clear understanding as to what is meant by the "indigenous population" --- and --- when a migrating population or an immigrating population has assimilated enough to be identified with the indigenous population; would it really matter if the objective to to save a culture in distress?

Most Respectfully,
R

I really don't think that this argument about who is an "indigenous population" to the territory is going anywhere.​

All of the people, Muslims, Christians, and Jews, who normally lived in Palestine when it was created after WWI became citizens of Palestine. That is the standard procedure. All of those new countries did the same thing.

There is nothing to dispute.

Actually, you're befuddled, as usual.

Palestine was the description of an undefined, noncontiguous land area. That's why it's comical to read of islamists referring to "Pal'istanians". That label for an invented people with an invented national identify was the creation of the now, thankfully dead, Arafat.

The Treaty of Lausanne came into force on August 6, 1924. It stated that the Ottoman nationals who were "habitually residents" of what became Palestine "will become ipso facto" nationals of that state.

The Palestine Citizenship Order was enacted by Britain on 24 July 1925.[4] It began by granting Palestinian citizenship to "Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine upon the 1st day of August, 1925"

History of Palestinian nationality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Just like I said.

But who tell to jews that Israel is part of Palestine so follow the order and establish the peace.

The lands sovereign owners up until may 1948.

 

[Phoenall]

Rehmani, Phoenall, MJB12741, et al,

I really don't think that this argument about who is an "indigenous population" to the territory is going anywhere.

Because arab and Palestinian never lived in Israel, they are illegal immigrants from the south and north. Thje jews look like Jews and their DNA matches that of the Jews who never left the Holy Land

Rubbish!

(COMMENT)

You can read and research all the various studies concerning the sample , analysis and testing of Mitochondrial DNA (MtDNA) of the Jewish People and still not have a definitive biological answer to what is basically a political question.

The attempt of these various DNA studies is to lend some scientific molecular genetic research credibility to the genetic ancestry of contemporary Jewish populations and whether there is some reasonable evidence demonstrated that their is a relationship to the ancient Israelites of the Middle East that lived two or three millennium ago. I'm not even sure that this is relevant; let alone a question that can be answered.

The establishment of the Jewish National Home in the Middle East was a decision based on the observation that the Jewish People needed a "safe haven" if the culture was remain viable and survive. And it was determined that basically, it was more important and beneficial to protect and safeguard the Jewish Culture from further attrition at the hands of present and future anti-Semitic regimes, to prevent the continuation of the cultural devastation as demonstrated by the historical indifference of most Europeans --- and --- the open collaboration of political regimes to target and murder of Jews to achieve some political end.

Even if there was a clear understanding as to what is meant by the "indigenous population" --- and --- when a migrating population or an immigrating population has assimilated enough to be identified with the indigenous population; would it really matter if the objective to to save a culture in distress?

Most Respectfully,
R

I really don't think that this argument about who is an "indigenous population" to the territory is going anywhere.​

All of the people, Muslims, Christians, and Jews, who normally lived in Palestine when it was created after WWI became citizens of Palestine. That is the standard procedure. All of those new countries did the same thing.

There is nothing to dispute.

Apart from what do we do with all those who migrated illegally to Palestine after 1923, which would be 80% of the current aqrab muslim population.

You are more jew than a jew, may be if I will try to convince to some jew would be better.

WRONG you just don't make any sense. Try posting on some islamonazi board in future

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

While you base conjecture that the use of conquest has changed, it has very little to do with the decision. After all, in the surrender of the Ottoman Empire territories was not illegal in the post World War I era.

theliq, et al,

The reliance on the concept of "indigenous" (rights or population) is a slippery slope.

well I can tell you for nothing Rocco,Jews were definately sic NOT THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF THIS LAND.......NOT BY A LONG HAUL..steve and you know it

(COMMENT)

The Anglo-Saxons of England were the members of Germanic-speaking groups who migrated (≈ AD 400 to AD 600) to the southern half of the island from continental Europe, and their cultural. Then, in about ≈ 1066, Duke William of Normandy invaded England (from France), ending ≈ 500 years of Saxon rule (Battle of Hastings.). Today, who is the indigenous population? Its a rhetorical question because it doesn't matter.

What this does indicate is that at some point, just as the Anglo-Saxons became the "indigenous population" over the post Roman era inhabitants, --- so it was that the Normans assimilated the survivors and they mix became indigenous. How long does it take to become the "indigenous population?"

Most Respectfully,
R

One thing I would like to point out. Hundreds of years ago military conquest was not illegal. It is now. So, recent colonial projects cannot be considered indigenous.

(COMMENT)

Colonial Projects and Cultural Assimilation are entirely different from that of making a determination as to who is indigenous. The fact of the matter is that the Ottoman Empire:

Unconditionally surrendered to the Allied Powers.

• Article 16, Armistice of Mudros
• Article 132, Treaty of Sevres
• Article 16, Treaty of Laussanne

The Allied Powers had the Authority to initiate the implementation of the Jewish National Home.
The Allied Powers decided to initiate immigration procedures.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

OK, but neither the LoN nor the Mandates acquired any land. They held the land in trust for the inhabitants of the respective newly created states.

Where does it say that, as you know treaties are not open ended to the point that they can be interpreted many ways. What they say is what they mean. And in this case the sovereignty of the land was passed on to the LoN , not the inhabitants of the land. This meant that under the Laws prevalent at the time the LoN could dispose of the land as they saw fit. If the mandates did not acquire any land then how could they pass it on to the people who now rule ?

If the mandates did not acquire any land then how could they pass it on to the people who now rule ?​

They didn't. Ask Rocco. The British passed the baton to the UNPC.

After the end of WW1, at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 (PPC), the principles of nationality and self-determination of peoples was advocated by President Wilson with two dozen other world leaders marking the beginning of the end of Colonialism. It proclaimed that no new territories should be annexed by the victors, and that such territories should be administered solely for the benefit of their indigenous people and be placed under the trusteeship of the mandatories acting on behalf of the League of Nations, until the true wishes of the inhabitants of those territories could be ascertained.

The PPC decided to recognise the territories under the mandatory system as “provisionally independent nations subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand by themselves”.It follows from this phrase that the mandatory mission is not intended to be prolonged indefinitely, but only until the peoples under tutelage are capable of managing their own affairs.

Class A mandates (Syria, Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon and Transjordan) recognised the peoples of these territories to have reached advanced stage of development and their independence could be recognised once they have achieved a capacity to govern themselves. It is universally and legally accepted that sovereignty in the mandatory territories lie in the inhabitants of the territory in question (Article 22 of the Covenant of The League of Nations).

Palestine’s legal position under International Law was clear: The United Kingdom was mandated Palestine in one piece. Article 5 of the Mandate required the Mandatory Power (the UK) to ensure that "no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way, placed under the control of the government of any foreign power". Under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the people of Palestine were to emerge as a fully independent nation at the end of the Mandate. Hence, Palestine was considered a provisionally independent state receiving administrative assistance and advice from the Mandatory. The sovereignty was vested in the people of Palestine. It was a dormant sovereignty exercised by the Mandatory power on behalf of the people of Palestine.

Partition and the Law - 1948​

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, P F Tinmore, et al

Article 20 has no clear impact on the Mandate. Article 22(4) only refers to "Certain communities." It does not obligate the League to the furtherance of an Agenda by the Arabs in the terriotry to which the Mandate applied.

P F Tinmore, et al,

While you base conjecture that the use of conquest has changed, it has very little to do with the decision. After all, in the surrender of the Ottoman Empire territories was not illegal in the post World War I era.

theliq, et al,

The reliance on the concept of "indigenous" (rights or population) is a slippery slope.

MJB12741,

The definition of "Indigenous People(s)" is tricky to say the least. The definition is often self serving.

Objectively, there are two very key issues that must be addressed before a determination can be made on the assignment of the "Indigenous People" label.

• How far back in time are you accepting evidence of a culture with historical ties to the territory?
• How long does it take for a culture to be in place before it can be considered "Indigenous?"
​

(COMMENT)

There is NO Universally accepted definition for "Indigenous People." Why? (Rhetorical) Simply because it raises difficult questions that cannot be settled accurately by law.

The Ohio Scenario

If the Canadians mount a successful amphibious assault from Ontario and captures the State of Ohio, who are considered the "indigenous population?"
OR, is it still the Iroquois, Miami, and Shawnee Tribes that inhabited the Ohio Valley (territory west of the Appalachian Mountains) in the time of the French and Indian Wars?
OR, was it the first American Settlers that moving west and encroaching on the indian inhabitants?
​

It is tied up in the nebulas phrase "historical ties to a particular territory;" or as the Allied Powers said at San Remo: "the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine." In 1920, when the Allied Powers were making decisions on the apportionment of former Ottoman Empire territory, they saw the history of the territory of Palestine as very transient and evolving. The territory of Palestine was a sliver of land that was controlled by numerous different Empires, Countries, and Cultural Authorities [Paleo-Canaanites, Amorites, Ancient Egyptians, Israelites, Moabites, Ammonites, Tjeker, Philistines, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, (Umayads, Abbasids, Seljuqs, Fatimids), French Crusaders, (Ayyubids, Mameluks, Ottoman Turks), and soon the British]. (List from Wikipedia --- History of Palestine) This is what the Allied Powers saw in the way of History. This is part of the thought process that ultimately lead them to the decisions they made.

Yes, we also consider cultural and historical distinction, ethnic groups associated, and a share sense of identity. But in the end, you have to ask yourself, how long do you look back in time to determine "indigenous?"

Most Respectfully,
R

well I can tell you for nothing Rocco,Jews were definately sic NOT THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF THIS LAND.......NOT BY A LONG HAUL..steve and you know it

(COMMENT)

The Anglo-Saxons of England were the members of Germanic-speaking groups who migrated (≈ AD 400 to AD 600) to the southern half of the island from continental Europe, and their cultural. Then, in about ≈ 1066, Duke William of Normandy invaded England (from France), ending ≈ 500 years of Saxon rule (Battle of Hastings.). Today, who is the indigenous population? Its a rhetorical question because it doesn't matter.

What this does indicate is that at some point, just as the Anglo-Saxons became the "indigenous population" over the post Roman era inhabitants, --- so it was that the Normans assimilated the survivors and they mix became indigenous. How long does it take to become the "indigenous population?"

Most Respectfully,
R

One thing I would like to point out. Hundreds of years ago military conquest was not illegal. It is now. So, recent colonial projects cannot be considered indigenous.

(COMMENT)

Colonial Projects and Cultural Assimilation are entirely different from that of making a determination as to who is indigenous. The fact of the matter is that the Ottoman Empire:

Unconditionally surrendered to the Allied Powers.

• Article 16, Armistice of Mudros
• Article 132, Treaty of Sevres
• Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne

The Allied Powers had the Authority to initiate the implementation of the Jewish National Home.
The Allied Powers decided to initiate immigration procedures.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

No, the Allied Powers had no right to implement the Jewish National Home as it contravened articles 20 and 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, i.e. the Balfour Declaration was null and void when the Britain signed the Covenant.

"ARTICLE 20.

The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.


ARTICLE 22.

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.....communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire (which included the Christian and Muslim Palestinians, ed.)have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory. - See more at: League of Nations covenant - Peace Treaty of Versailles, Peace Conference text/Non-UN document (28 April 1919)

(REFERENCE)

Article 22(4) League of Nations Covenant

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
​

Series of League of Nations Publications VI.A. MANDATES 1945. VI.A. 1 II. THE PRINCIPLES OF THE MANDATORY REGIME

The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917. By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage 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 Mandate reproduces the Balfour Declaration almost in full in its preamble and states that "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country".
​

(COMMENT)

Article 22(4) does not specifically obligate the Allied Powers to a particular course of action pertaining to any territory under which the Mandate was applied. Nor does Article 22 (in totality) does not specifically identify the territory to which the Mandate applies as an independent nation which could be (as in the possibility but not a certainty) “provisionally recognized.”

The concept of a sacred trust is not exclusively applied or focused upon one people over another. It also applies to the all people with the for the purpose of self-determination. In that regard, the Balfour Declaration made public the British support of a Jewish homeland in Palestine; and led the League of Nations to entrust the United Kingdom with the Palestine Mandate. There is no such public obligation made to the Arabs of Palestine.

Most Respectively,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, P F Tinmore, et al

Article 20 has no clear impact on the Mandate. Article 22(4) only refers to "Certain communities." It does not obligate the League to the furtherance of an Agenda by the Arabs in the terriotry to which the Mandate applied.

P F Tinmore, et al,

While you base conjecture that the use of conquest has changed, it has very little to do with the decision. After all, in the surrender of the Ottoman Empire territories was not illegal in the post World War I era.

theliq, et al,

The reliance on the concept of "indigenous" (rights or population) is a slippery slope.

well I can tell you for nothing Rocco,Jews were definately sic NOT THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF THIS LAND.......NOT BY A LONG HAUL..steve and you know it

(COMMENT)

The Anglo-Saxons of England were the members of Germanic-speaking groups who migrated (≈ AD 400 to AD 600) to the southern half of the island from continental Europe, and their cultural. Then, in about ≈ 1066, Duke William of Normandy invaded England (from France), ending ≈ 500 years of Saxon rule (Battle of Hastings.). Today, who is the indigenous population? Its a rhetorical question because it doesn't matter.

What this does indicate is that at some point, just as the Anglo-Saxons became the "indigenous population" over the post Roman era inhabitants, --- so it was that the Normans assimilated the survivors and they mix became indigenous. How long does it take to become the "indigenous population?"

Most Respectfully,
R

One thing I would like to point out. Hundreds of years ago military conquest was not illegal. It is now. So, recent colonial projects cannot be considered indigenous.

(COMMENT)

Colonial Projects and Cultural Assimilation are entirely different from that of making a determination as to who is indigenous. The fact of the matter is that the Ottoman Empire:

Unconditionally surrendered to the Allied Powers.

• Article 16, Armistice of Mudros
• Article 132, Treaty of Sevres
• Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne

The Allied Powers had the Authority to initiate the implementation of the Jewish National Home.
The Allied Powers decided to initiate immigration procedures.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

No, the Allied Powers had no right to implement the Jewish National Home as it contravened articles 20 and 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, i.e. the Balfour Declaration was null and void when the Britain signed the Covenant.

"ARTICLE 20.

The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.


ARTICLE 22.

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.....communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire (which included the Christian and Muslim Palestinians, ed.)have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory. - See more at: League of Nations covenant - Peace Treaty of Versailles, Peace Conference text/Non-UN document (28 April 1919)

(REFERENCE)

Article 22(4) League of Nations Covenant

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
​

Series of League of Nations Publications VI.A. MANDATES 1945. VI.A. 1 II. THE PRINCIPLES OF THE MANDATORY REGIME

The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917. By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage 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 Mandate reproduces the Balfour Declaration almost in full in its preamble and states that "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country".
​

(COMMENT)

Article 22(4) does not specifically obligate the Allied Powers to a particular course of action pertaining to any territory under which the Mandate was applied. Nor does Article 22 (in totality) does not specifically identify the territory to which the Mandate applies as an independent nation which could be (as in the possibility but not a certainty) “provisionally recognized.”

The concept of a sacred trust is not exclusively applied or focused upon one people over another. It also applies to the all people with the for the purpose of self-determination. In that regard, the Balfour Declaration made public the British support of a Jewish homeland in Palestine; and led the League of Nations to entrust the United Kingdom with the Palestine Mandate. There is no such public obligation made to the Arabs of Palestine.

Most Respectively,
R

Nothing here disputes my post which makes me wonder about your reason for your post.

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, P F Tinmore, et al

Article 20 has no clear impact on the Mandate. Article 22(4) only refers to "Certain communities." It does not obligate the League to the furtherance of an Agenda by the Arabs in the terriotry to which the Mandate applied.

P F Tinmore, et al,

While you base conjecture that the use of conquest has changed, it has very little to do with the decision. After all, in the surrender of the Ottoman Empire territories was not illegal in the post World War I era.

theliq, et al,

The reliance on the concept of "indigenous" (rights or population) is a slippery slope.

well I can tell you for nothing Rocco,Jews were definately sic NOT THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF THIS LAND.......NOT BY A LONG HAUL..steve and you know it

(COMMENT)

The Anglo-Saxons of England were the members of Germanic-speaking groups who migrated (≈ AD 400 to AD 600) to the southern half of the island from continental Europe, and their cultural. Then, in about ≈ 1066, Duke William of Normandy invaded England (from France), ending ≈ 500 years of Saxon rule (Battle of Hastings.). Today, who is the indigenous population? Its a rhetorical question because it doesn't matter.

What this does indicate is that at some point, just as the Anglo-Saxons became the "indigenous population" over the post Roman era inhabitants, --- so it was that the Normans assimilated the survivors and they mix became indigenous. How long does it take to become the "indigenous population?"

Most Respectfully,
R

One thing I would like to point out. Hundreds of years ago military conquest was not illegal. It is now. So, recent colonial projects cannot be considered indigenous.

(COMMENT)

Colonial Projects and Cultural Assimilation are entirely different from that of making a determination as to who is indigenous. The fact of the matter is that the Ottoman Empire:

Unconditionally surrendered to the Allied Powers.

• Article 16, Armistice of Mudros
• Article 132, Treaty of Sevres
• Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne

The Allied Powers had the Authority to initiate the implementation of the Jewish National Home.
The Allied Powers decided to initiate immigration procedures.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

No, the Allied Powers had no right to implement the Jewish National Home as it contravened articles 20 and 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, i.e. the Balfour Declaration was null and void when the Britain signed the Covenant.

"ARTICLE 20.

The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.


ARTICLE 22.

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.....communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire (which included the Christian and Muslim Palestinians, ed.)have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory. - See more at: League of Nations covenant - Peace Treaty of Versailles, Peace Conference text/Non-UN document (28 April 1919)

(REFERENCE)

Article 22(4) League of Nations Covenant

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
​

Series of League of Nations Publications VI.A. MANDATES 1945. VI.A. 1 II. THE PRINCIPLES OF THE MANDATORY REGIME

The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917. By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage 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 Mandate reproduces the Balfour Declaration almost in full in its preamble and states that "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country".
​

(COMMENT)

Article 22(4) does not specifically obligate the Allied Powers to a particular course of action pertaining to any territory under which the Mandate was applied. Nor does Article 22 (in totality) does not specifically identify the territory to which the Mandate applies as an independent nation which could be (as in the possibility but not a certainty) “provisionally recognized.”

The concept of a sacred trust is not exclusively applied or focused upon one people over another. It also applies to the all people with the for the purpose of self-determination. In that regard, the Balfour Declaration made public the British support of a Jewish homeland in Palestine; and led the League of Nations to entrust the United Kingdom with the Palestine Mandate. There is no such public obligation made to the Arabs of Palestine.

Most Respectively,
R

The certain communities were the communities formerly of the Turks and included Palestine. The British signed the Covenant agreeing to Article 20, which required that any agreements contrary to the Covenant, which precluded Britain from denying self-determination to the Palestinian people through antecedent agreements, be abrogated. You are out of your depth, sir.

 

[Indeependent]

montelatici, P F Tinmore, et al

Article 20 has no clear impact on the Mandate. Article 22(4) only refers to "Certain communities." It does not obligate the League to the furtherance of an Agenda by the Arabs in the terriotry to which the Mandate applied.

P F Tinmore, et al,

While you base conjecture that the use of conquest has changed, it has very little to do with the decision. After all, in the surrender of the Ottoman Empire territories was not illegal in the post World War I era.

theliq, et al,

The reliance on the concept of "indigenous" (rights or population) is a slippery slope.

(COMMENT)

The Anglo-Saxons of England were the members of Germanic-speaking groups who migrated (≈ AD 400 to AD 600) to the southern half of the island from continental Europe, and their cultural. Then, in about ≈ 1066, Duke William of Normandy invaded England (from France), ending ≈ 500 years of Saxon rule (Battle of Hastings.). Today, who is the indigenous population? Its a rhetorical question because it doesn't matter.

What this does indicate is that at some point, just as the Anglo-Saxons became the "indigenous population" over the post Roman era inhabitants, --- so it was that the Normans assimilated the survivors and they mix became indigenous. How long does it take to become the "indigenous population?"

Most Respectfully,
R

One thing I would like to point out. Hundreds of years ago military conquest was not illegal. It is now. So, recent colonial projects cannot be considered indigenous.

(COMMENT)

Colonial Projects and Cultural Assimilation are entirely different from that of making a determination as to who is indigenous. The fact of the matter is that the Ottoman Empire:

Unconditionally surrendered to the Allied Powers.

• Article 16, Armistice of Mudros
• Article 132, Treaty of Sevres
• Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne

The Allied Powers had the Authority to initiate the implementation of the Jewish National Home.
The Allied Powers decided to initiate immigration procedures.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

No, the Allied Powers had no right to implement the Jewish National Home as it contravened articles 20 and 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, i.e. the Balfour Declaration was null and void when the Britain signed the Covenant.

"ARTICLE 20.

The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.


ARTICLE 22.

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.....communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire (which included the Christian and Muslim Palestinians, ed.)have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory. - See more at: League of Nations covenant - Peace Treaty of Versailles, Peace Conference text/Non-UN document (28 April 1919)

(REFERENCE)

Article 22(4) League of Nations Covenant

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
​

Series of League of Nations Publications VI.A. MANDATES 1945. VI.A. 1 II. THE PRINCIPLES OF THE MANDATORY REGIME

The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917. By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage 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 Mandate reproduces the Balfour Declaration almost in full in its preamble and states that "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country".
​

(COMMENT)

Article 22(4) does not specifically obligate the Allied Powers to a particular course of action pertaining to any territory under which the Mandate was applied. Nor does Article 22 (in totality) does not specifically identify the territory to which the Mandate applies as an independent nation which could be (as in the possibility but not a certainty) “provisionally recognized.”

The concept of a sacred trust is not exclusively applied or focused upon one people over another. It also applies to the all people with the for the purpose of self-determination. In that regard, the Balfour Declaration made public the British support of a Jewish homeland in Palestine; and led the League of Nations to entrust the United Kingdom with the Palestine Mandate. There is no such public obligation made to the Arabs of Palestine.

Most Respectively,
R

The certain communities were the communities formerly of the Turks and included Palestine. The British signed the Covenant agreeing to Article 20, which required that any agreements contrary to the Covenant, which precluded Britain from denying self-determination to the Palestinian people through antecedent agreements, be abrogated. You are out of your depth, sir.

Where did you learn your version of the Six Days War Where The Muslims Got Their Asses Kicked?
Website? Which one?
History book? Please provide the Name and Author.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, theliq, montelatici, et al,

You, theliq, and montelatici, clearly responded back-to-back with (what appeared to me to be) the intent to imply (or support the implication) that Article 20 and Article 22 have appended some specific obligation or promise of sovereignty.

Your two sentence reply was intended to suggest that the fact that there is a question of legality in all cases of trial by combat relative to independence is unlawful. That would be wrong in both the case of Israel (which was clearly attacked by an act of aggression) in which the UN supported Armistice agreed to the lines of demarcation, and the fact that the Arab Palestinians were not party to any Armistice or subsequent treaty which set the new international boundaries.

Nothing here disputes my post which makes me wonder about your reason for your post.

(COMMENT)

This is not the first time in which you and fellow pro-Palestinians attempt to use the League of Nation Covenant as an obligatory device that suggests the actions from May 1948 on were somehow illegal; and that the Arab Palestinians had some prior established claim on the territory involved. Or that, in defense of their right to self-determination, the Jewish People did not have the right to defend and retain territories lost in combat by the aggressor (Arab League Forces) who attacked first; with the territory within the demarcation of the Armistice shall remain in control of the Israelis until such in force --- until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved.

REMEMBER: There is NO Armistice Agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians, thus they are not an aggrieved party to the conflict. They may not attempt to enforce any aspect of the Covenant or Armistice to which they were not a party (the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case).

The only point at which the Israelis might (remotely) have had to defend their control of territory was as a result of the Six-Day War (1967); although that was a preemptive strike. However the parties involved in the Six-Day War were Jordan and Egypt; both of which have resolved their individual claim and complaint by Peace Treaty. The Arab Palestinians were not a party to the dispute or combat outcome.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Humanity]

P F Tinmore, theliq, montelatici, et al,

You, theliq, and montelatici, clearly responded back-to-back with (what appeared to me to be) the intent to imply (or support the implication) that Article 20 and Article 22 have appended some specific obligation or promise of sovereignty.

Your two sentence reply was intended to suggest that the fact that there is a question of legality in all cases of trial by combat relative to independence is unlawful. That would be wrong in both the case of Israel (which was clearly attacked by an act of aggression) in which the UN supported Armistice agreed to the lines of demarcation, and the fact that the Arab Palestinians were not party to any Armistice or subsequent treaty which set the new international boundaries.

Nothing here disputes my post which makes me wonder about your reason for your post.

(COMMENT)

This is not the first time in which you and fellow pro-Palestinians attempt to use the League of Nation Covenant as an obligatory device that suggests the actions from May 1948 on were somehow illegal; and that the Arab Palestinians had some prior established claim on the territory involved. Or that, in defense of their right to self-determination, the Jewish People did not have the right to defend and retain territories lost in combat by the aggressor (Arab League Forces) who attacked first; with the territory within the demarcation of the Armistice shall remain in control of the Israelis until such in force --- until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved.

REMEMBER: There is NO Armistice Agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians, thus they are not an aggrieved party to the conflict. They may not attempt to enforce any aspect of the Covenant or Armistice to which they were not a party (the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case).

The only point at which the Israelis might (remotely) have had to defend their control of territory was as a result of the Six-Day War (1967); although that was a preemptive strike. However the parties involved in the Six-Day War were Jordan and Egypt; both of which have resolved their individual claim and complaint by Peace Treaty. The Arab Palestinians were not a party to the dispute or combat outcome.

Most Respectfully,
R

I think you forgot Syria!

 

[montelatici]

The Palestinian Christians and Muslims were parties to the Covenant as a community previously under Turkish rule. Just as the communities in Egypt, Syria, Lebanion, etc. As I said, you are out of your depth.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, theliq, montelatici, et al,

You, theliq, and montelatici, clearly responded back-to-back with (what appeared to me to be) the intent to imply (or support the implication) that Article 20 and Article 22 have appended some specific obligation or promise of sovereignty.

Your two sentence reply was intended to suggest that the fact that there is a question of legality in all cases of trial by combat relative to independence is unlawful. That would be wrong in both the case of Israel (which was clearly attacked by an act of aggression) in which the UN supported Armistice agreed to the lines of demarcation, and the fact that the Arab Palestinians were not party to any Armistice or subsequent treaty which set the new international boundaries.

Nothing here disputes my post which makes me wonder about your reason for your post.

(COMMENT)

This is not the first time in which you and fellow pro-Palestinians attempt to use the League of Nation Covenant as an obligatory device that suggests the actions from May 1948 on were somehow illegal; and that the Arab Palestinians had some prior established claim on the territory involved. Or that, in defense of their right to self-determination, the Jewish People did not have the right to defend and retain territories lost in combat by the aggressor (Arab League Forces) who attacked first; with the territory within the demarcation of the Armistice shall remain in control of the Israelis until such in force --- until a peaceful settlement between the Parties is achieved.

REMEMBER: There is NO Armistice Agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians, thus they are not an aggrieved party to the conflict. They may not attempt to enforce any aspect of the Covenant or Armistice to which they were not a party (the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case).

The only point at which the Israelis might (remotely) have had to defend their control of territory was as a result of the Six-Day War (1967); although that was a preemptive strike. However the parties involved in the Six-Day War were Jordan and Egypt; both of which have resolved their individual claim and complaint by Peace Treaty. The Arab Palestinians were not a party to the dispute or combat outcome.

Most Respectfully,
R

The 1948 war was irrelevant to the legal status of Palestine.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Yeah --- Yeah ---- "out of my depth."

montelatici, P F Tinmore, et al

Article 20 has no clear impact on the Mandate. Article 22(4) only refers to "Certain communities." It does not obligate the League to the furtherance of an Agenda by the Arabs in the terriotry to which the Mandate applied.

P F Tinmore, et al,

While you base conjecture that the use of conquest has changed, it has very little to do with the decision. After all, in the surrender of the Ottoman Empire territories was not illegal in the post World War I era.

theliq, et al,

The reliance on the concept of "indigenous" (rights or population) is a slippery slope.

(COMMENT)

The Anglo-Saxons of England were the members of Germanic-speaking groups who migrated (≈ AD 400 to AD 600) to the southern half of the island from continental Europe, and their cultural. Then, in about ≈ 1066, Duke William of Normandy invaded England (from France), ending ≈ 500 years of Saxon rule (Battle of Hastings.). Today, who is the indigenous population? Its a rhetorical question because it doesn't matter.

What this does indicate is that at some point, just as the Anglo-Saxons became the "indigenous population" over the post Roman era inhabitants, --- so it was that the Normans assimilated the survivors and they mix became indigenous. How long does it take to become the "indigenous population?"

Most Respectfully,
R

One thing I would like to point out. Hundreds of years ago military conquest was not illegal. It is now. So, recent colonial projects cannot be considered indigenous.

(COMMENT)

Colonial Projects and Cultural Assimilation are entirely different from that of making a determination as to who is indigenous. The fact of the matter is that the Ottoman Empire:

Unconditionally surrendered to the Allied Powers.

• Article 16, Armistice of Mudros
• Article 132, Treaty of Sevres
• Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne

The Allied Powers had the Authority to initiate the implementation of the Jewish National Home.
The Allied Powers decided to initiate immigration procedures.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

No, the Allied Powers had no right to implement the Jewish National Home as it contravened articles 20 and 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, i.e. the Balfour Declaration was null and void when the Britain signed the Covenant.

"ARTICLE 20.

The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.


ARTICLE 22.

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.....communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire (which included the Christian and Muslim Palestinians, ed.)have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory. - See more at: League of Nations covenant - Peace Treaty of Versailles, Peace Conference text/Non-UN document (28 April 1919)

(REFERENCE)

Article 22(4) League of Nations Covenant

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
​

Series of League of Nations Publications VI.A. MANDATES 1945. VI.A. 1 II. THE PRINCIPLES OF THE MANDATORY REGIME

The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917. By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage 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 Mandate reproduces the Balfour Declaration almost in full in its preamble and states that "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country".
​

(COMMENT)

Article 22(4) does not specifically obligate the Allied Powers to a particular course of action pertaining to any territory under which the Mandate was applied. Nor does Article 22 (in totality) does not specifically identify the territory to which the Mandate applies as an independent nation which could be (as in the possibility but not a certainty) “provisionally recognized.”

The concept of a sacred trust is not exclusively applied or focused upon one people over another. It also applies to the all people with the for the purpose of self-determination. In that regard, the Balfour Declaration made public the British support of a Jewish homeland in Palestine; and led the League of Nations to entrust the United Kingdom with the Palestine Mandate. There is no such public obligation made to the Arabs of Palestine.

Most Respectively,
R

The certain communities were the communities formerly of the Turks and included Palestine. The British signed the Covenant agreeing to Article 20, which required that any agreements contrary to the Covenant, which precluded Britain from denying self-determination to the Palestinian people through antecedent agreements, be abrogated. You are out of your depth, sir.

(COMMENT)

That is an assumption on you part.

IF the phrase "certain communities" meant "all communities," THEN --- it would have said "all communities." Certain communities imply that there are communities to which it doesn't apply.

Britain never denied the "Right of Self-determination" to the Arab Palestinians.

22. Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.
​

In fact, at the time the Covenant (18 April 1946, when its assets and responsibilities were transferred to the United Nations) was signed (1919) there was no understood or universally accepted enforceable international law that acknowledge the "right of self-determination." (Since you claim that there is, please tell me the citation that was in force prior to the UN Charter.)

Chapter 1, Article 1(2), UN Charter ----
The Purposes of the United Nations are:

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
​

The requirement is to develop friendly relations, not to enforce (but based on respect for the principle of) self-determination. It must be remembered that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not list "self-determination" as a right. For that reason, the wording is: "equal rights and self-determination" as two different concepts.

Self determination (international law)

Self-determination denotes the legal right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order. Self-determination is a core principle of international law, arising from customary international law, but also recognized as a general principle of law, and enshrined in a number of international treaties. For instance, self-determination is protected in the United Nations Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as a right of “all peoples.”

The scope and purpose of the principle of self-determination has evolved significantly in the 20th century. In the early 1900’s, international support grew for the right of all people to self-determination. This led to successful secessionist movements during and after WWI, WWII and laid the groundwork for decolonization in the 1960s.

Contemporary notions of self-determination usually distinguish between “internal” and “external” self-determination, suggesting that "self-determination" exists on a spectrum. Internal self-determination may refer to various political and social rights; by contrast, external self-determination refers to full legal independence/secession for the given 'people' from the larger politico-legal state.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This always circles around.

The 1948 war was irrelevant to the legal status of Palestine.

(COMMENT)

You are implying that Palestine (undefined) had some special status.

It did not. It was a non-self-governing legal entity. Israel was a declared sovereignty. The 1948 was between Israel and the Arab League countries contributing forces.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

Yeah --- Yeah ---- "out of my depth."

montelatici, P F Tinmore, et al

Article 20 has no clear impact on the Mandate. Article 22(4) only refers to "Certain communities." It does not obligate the League to the furtherance of an Agenda by the Arabs in the terriotry to which the Mandate applied.

P F Tinmore, et al,

While you base conjecture that the use of conquest has changed, it has very little to do with the decision. After all, in the surrender of the Ottoman Empire territories was not illegal in the post World War I era.

One thing I would like to point out. Hundreds of years ago military conquest was not illegal. It is now. So, recent colonial projects cannot be considered indigenous.

(COMMENT)

Colonial Projects and Cultural Assimilation are entirely different from that of making a determination as to who is indigenous. The fact of the matter is that the Ottoman Empire:

Unconditionally surrendered to the Allied Powers.

• Article 16, Armistice of Mudros
• Article 132, Treaty of Sevres
• Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne

The Allied Powers had the Authority to initiate the implementation of the Jewish National Home.
The Allied Powers decided to initiate immigration procedures.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

No, the Allied Powers had no right to implement the Jewish National Home as it contravened articles 20 and 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, i.e. the Balfour Declaration was null and void when the Britain signed the Covenant.

"ARTICLE 20.

The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.


ARTICLE 22.

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.....communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire (which included the Christian and Muslim Palestinians, ed.)have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory. - See more at: League of Nations covenant - Peace Treaty of Versailles, Peace Conference text/Non-UN document (28 April 1919)

(REFERENCE)

Article 22(4) League of Nations Covenant

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
​

Series of League of Nations Publications VI.A. MANDATES 1945. VI.A. 1 II. THE PRINCIPLES OF THE MANDATORY REGIME

The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917. By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage 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 Mandate reproduces the Balfour Declaration almost in full in its preamble and states that "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country".
​

(COMMENT)

Article 22(4) does not specifically obligate the Allied Powers to a particular course of action pertaining to any territory under which the Mandate was applied. Nor does Article 22 (in totality) does not specifically identify the territory to which the Mandate applies as an independent nation which could be (as in the possibility but not a certainty) “provisionally recognized.”

The concept of a sacred trust is not exclusively applied or focused upon one people over another. It also applies to the all people with the for the purpose of self-determination. In that regard, the Balfour Declaration made public the British support of a Jewish homeland in Palestine; and led the League of Nations to entrust the United Kingdom with the Palestine Mandate. There is no such public obligation made to the Arabs of Palestine.

Most Respectively,
R

The certain communities were the communities formerly of the Turks and included Palestine. The British signed the Covenant agreeing to Article 20, which required that any agreements contrary to the Covenant, which precluded Britain from denying self-determination to the Palestinian people through antecedent agreements, be abrogated. You are out of your depth, sir.

(COMMENT)

That is an assumption on you part.

IF the phrase "certain communities" meant "all communities," THEN --- it would have said "all communities." Certain communities imply that there are communities to which it doesn't apply.

Britain never denied the "Right of Self-determination" to the Arab Palestinians.

22. Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.
​

In fact, at the time the Covenant (18 April 1946, when its assets and responsibilities were transferred to the United Nations) was signed (1919) there was no understood or universally accepted enforceable international law that acknowledge the "right of self-determination." (Since you claim that there is, please tell me the citation that was in force prior to the UN Charter.)

Chapter 1, Article 1(2), UN Charter ----
The Purposes of the United Nations are:

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
​

The requirement is to develop friendly relations, not to enforce (but based on respect for the principle of) self-determination. It must be remembered that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not list "self-determination" as a right. For that reason, the wording is: "equal rights and self-determination" as two different concepts.

Self determination (international law)

Self-determination denotes the legal right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order. Self-determination is a core principle of international law, arising from customary international law, but also recognized as a general principle of law, and enshrined in a number of international treaties. For instance, self-determination is protected in the United Nations Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as a right of “all peoples.”

The scope and purpose of the principle of self-determination has evolved significantly in the 20th century. In the early 1900’s, international support grew for the right of all people to self-determination. This led to successful secessionist movements during and after WWI, WWII and laid the groundwork for decolonization in the 1960s.

Contemporary notions of self-determination usually distinguish between “internal” and “external” self-determination, suggesting that "self-determination" exists on a spectrum. Internal self-determination may refer to various political and social rights; by contrast, external self-determination refers to full legal independence/secession for the given 'people' from the larger politico-legal state.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

As I said, you are out of your depth. Stop making a fool of yourself.


MANDATES A.

MEMORANDUM BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS. [Lord Curzon].

A FINAL decision about Mandates A is required. The Assembly of the League of Nations is concerned about their submission to the Council, and will probably not allow the gathering at Geneva to come to an end without a decision being taken on the point.

It is understood that the Council of the League is likely to hold a meeting while at Geneva to consider these Mandates, and it has been informed that they will be submitted without further delay. The Mandates concerned are those for Syria, Mesopotamia and Palestine.

The French Mandate for Syria is drawn on the same lines as ours for Mesopotamia, though not actually identical with it. There is nothing in it to which we desire to object.

The Mandate for Mesopotamia has passed through several stages, tending in each case to further simplification. It has been shown to, and approved by, the French and Italian Governments, to whom we were under a pledge at San Remo to submit it In its last printed form this Mandate was approved by the Cabinet a few weeks ago . . .

As regards the Palestine Mandate, this Mandate also has passed through several revises. When it was first shown to the French Government it at once excited their vehement criticisms on the ground of its almost exclusively Zionist complexion and of the manner in which the interests and rights of the Arab majority (amounting to about nine-tenths of the population) were ignored. The Italian Government expressed similar apprehensions. It was felt that this would constitute a very serious, and possibly a fatal, objection when the Mandate came ultimately before the Council of the League. The Mandate, therefore, was largely rewritten, and finally received their assent. It was also considered by an Inter-Departmental Conference here, in which the Foreign Office, Board of Trade, War Office and India Office were represented, and which passed the final draft.

In the course of these discussions strong objection was taken to a statement which had been inserted in the Preamble of the first draft to the following effect:— ” Recognising the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the claim which this gives them to reconstitute Palestine as their National Home.”

367 [4996]

It was pointed out (1) that, while the Powers had unquestionably recognised the historical connection of the Jews with Palestine by their formal acceptance of the Balfour Declaration and their textual incorporation of it in the Turkish Peace Treaty drafted at San Remo, this was far from constituting anything in the nature of a legal claim, and that the use of such words might be, and was, indeed, certain to be, used as the basis of all sorts of political claims by the Zionists for the control of Palestinian administration in the future, and ;2) that, while Mr. Balfour’s Declaration had provided for the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, this was not the same thing as the reconstitution of Palestine as a Jewish National Home–an extension of the phrase for which there was no justification, and which was certain to be employed in the future as the basis for claims of the character to which I have referred. On the other hand, the Zionists pleaded for the insertion of some such phrase in the preamble, on the ground that it would make all the difference to the money that they aspired to raise in foreign, countries for the development of Palestine. Mr. Balfour, who interested himself keenly in their case, admitted, however, the force of the above contentions, and, on the eve of leaving for Geneva, suggested an alternative form of words which I am prepared to recommend.

Paragraph 3 of the Preamble would then conclude as follows (vide the words italicised in the Draft-;

” and whereas recognition lias thereby (i.e., by the Treaty of Sevres) been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine, and to the grounds for reconstituting their National Home in that country.”

Simultaneously the Zionists pressed for the concession of preferential rights for themselves in respect of public works, &c, in Article 11.

It was felt unanimously, and was agreed by Mr. Balfour, that there was no ground for making this concession, which ought to be refused. . .

During the last few hours a telegram has been received from Sir H. Samuel, urging that, in order to facilitate the raising of loans by the Palestine Administration, which will otherwise be impossible, words should be added to Article 27, providing that on the termination of the Mandate, the future Government of Palestine shall fully honour the financial obligations incurred by the Palestinian Administration during the period of the Mandate. This appears to be a quite reasonable demand, and I have accordingly added words (italicised at the end of Article 27) in order to meet it. With this explanation, therefore, I hope that the Mandates in the form now submitted may be formally passed and forwarded to the Council of the League.

C. OF K. November 30, 1920.

End/ (Not Continued

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

And just how does this one memorandum alter or make illegal any aspect of the actions actually taken.

montelatici, et al,

Yeah --- Yeah ---- "out of my depth."

montelatici, P F Tinmore, et al

Article 20 has no clear impact on the Mandate. Article 22(4) only refers to "Certain communities." It does not obligate the League to the furtherance of an Agenda by the Arabs in the terriotry to which the Mandate applied.

P F Tinmore, et al,

While you base conjecture that the use of conquest has changed, it has very little to do with the decision. After all, in the surrender of the Ottoman Empire territories was not illegal in the post World War I era.

(COMMENT)

Colonial Projects and Cultural Assimilation are entirely different from that of making a determination as to who is indigenous. The fact of the matter is that the Ottoman Empire:

Unconditionally surrendered to the Allied Powers.

• Article 16, Armistice of Mudros
• Article 132, Treaty of Sevres
• Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne

The Allied Powers had the Authority to initiate the implementation of the Jewish National Home.
The Allied Powers decided to initiate immigration procedures.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

No, the Allied Powers had no right to implement the Jewish National Home as it contravened articles 20 and 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, i.e. the Balfour Declaration was null and void when the Britain signed the Covenant.

"ARTICLE 20.

The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.


ARTICLE 22.

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.....communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire (which included the Christian and Muslim Palestinians, ed.)have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory. - See more at: League of Nations covenant - Peace Treaty of Versailles, Peace Conference text/Non-UN document (28 April 1919)

(REFERENCE)

Article 22(4) League of Nations Covenant

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
​

Series of League of Nations Publications VI.A. MANDATES 1945. VI.A. 1 II. THE PRINCIPLES OF THE MANDATORY REGIME

The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917. By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage 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 Mandate reproduces the Balfour Declaration almost in full in its preamble and states that "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country".
​

(COMMENT)

Article 22(4) does not specifically obligate the Allied Powers to a particular course of action pertaining to any territory under which the Mandate was applied. Nor does Article 22 (in totality) does not specifically identify the territory to which the Mandate applies as an independent nation which could be (as in the possibility but not a certainty) “provisionally recognized.”

The concept of a sacred trust is not exclusively applied or focused upon one people over another. It also applies to the all people with the for the purpose of self-determination. In that regard, the Balfour Declaration made public the British support of a Jewish homeland in Palestine; and led the League of Nations to entrust the United Kingdom with the Palestine Mandate. There is no such public obligation made to the Arabs of Palestine.

Most Respectively,
R

The certain communities were the communities formerly of the Turks and included Palestine. The British signed the Covenant agreeing to Article 20, which required that any agreements contrary to the Covenant, which precluded Britain from denying self-determination to the Palestinian people through antecedent agreements, be abrogated. You are out of your depth, sir.

(COMMENT)

That is an assumption on you part.

IF the phrase "certain communities" meant "all communities," THEN --- it would have said "all communities." Certain communities imply that there are communities to which it doesn't apply.

Britain never denied the "Right of Self-determination" to the Arab Palestinians.

22. Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.
​

In fact, at the time the Covenant (18 April 1946, when its assets and responsibilities were transferred to the United Nations) was signed (1919) there was no understood or universally accepted enforceable international law that acknowledge the "right of self-determination." (Since you claim that there is, please tell me the citation that was in force prior to the UN Charter.)

Chapter 1, Article 1(2), UN Charter ----
The Purposes of the United Nations are:

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
​

The requirement is to develop friendly relations, not to enforce (but based on respect for the principle of) self-determination. It must be remembered that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not list "self-determination" as a right. For that reason, the wording is: "equal rights and self-determination" as two different concepts.

Self determination (international law)

Self-determination denotes the legal right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order. Self-determination is a core principle of international law, arising from customary international law, but also recognized as a general principle of law, and enshrined in a number of international treaties. For instance, self-determination is protected in the United Nations Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as a right of “all peoples.”

The scope and purpose of the principle of self-determination has evolved significantly in the 20th century. In the early 1900’s, international support grew for the right of all people to self-determination. This led to successful secessionist movements during and after WWI, WWII and laid the groundwork for decolonization in the 1960s.

Contemporary notions of self-determination usually distinguish between “internal” and “external” self-determination, suggesting that "self-determination" exists on a spectrum. Internal self-determination may refer to various political and social rights; by contrast, external self-determination refers to full legal independence/secession for the given 'people' from the larger politico-legal state.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

As I said, you are out of your depth. Stop making a fool of yourself.


MANDATES A.

MEMORANDUM BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS. [Lord Curzon].

A FINAL decision about Mandates A is required. The Assembly of the League of Nations is concerned about their submission to the Council, and will probably not allow the gathering at Geneva to come to an end without a decision being taken on the point.

It is understood that the Council of the League is likely to hold a meeting while at Geneva to consider these Mandates, and it has been informed that they will be submitted without further delay. The Mandates concerned are those for Syria, Mesopotamia and Palestine.

The French Mandate for Syria is drawn on the same lines as ours for Mesopotamia, though not actually identical with it. There is nothing in it to which we desire to object.

The Mandate for Mesopotamia has passed through several stages, tending in each case to further simplification. It has been shown to, and approved by, the French and Italian Governments, to whom we were under a pledge at San Remo to submit it In its last printed form this Mandate was approved by the Cabinet a few weeks ago . . .

As regards the Palestine Mandate, this Mandate also has passed through several revises. When it was first shown to the French Government it at once excited their vehement criticisms on the ground of its almost exclusively Zionist complexion and of the manner in which the interests and rights of the Arab majority (amounting to about nine-tenths of the population) were ignored. The Italian Government expressed similar apprehensions. It was felt that this would constitute a very serious, and possibly a fatal, objection when the Mandate came ultimately before the Council of the League. The Mandate, therefore, was largely rewritten, and finally received their assent. It was also considered by an Inter-Departmental Conference here, in which the Foreign Office, Board of Trade, War Office and India Office were represented, and which passed the final draft.

In the course of these discussions strong objection was taken to a statement which had been inserted in the Preamble of the first draft to the following effect:— ” Recognising the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the claim which this gives them to reconstitute Palestine as their National Home.”

367 [4996]

It was pointed out (1) that, while the Powers had unquestionably recognised the historical connection of the Jews with Palestine by their formal acceptance of the Balfour Declaration and their textual incorporation of it in the Turkish Peace Treaty drafted at San Remo, this was far from constituting anything in the nature of a legal claim, and that the use of such words might be, and was, indeed, certain to be, used as the basis of all sorts of political claims by the Zionists for the control of Palestinian administration in the future, and ;2) that, while Mr. Balfour’s Declaration had provided for the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, this was not the same thing as the reconstitution of Palestine as a Jewish National Home–an extension of the phrase for which there was no justification, and which was certain to be employed in the future as the basis for claims of the character to which I have referred. On the other hand, the Zionists pleaded for the insertion of some such phrase in the preamble, on the ground that it would make all the difference to the money that they aspired to raise in foreign, countries for the development of Palestine. Mr. Balfour, who interested himself keenly in their case, admitted, however, the force of the above contentions, and, on the eve of leaving for Geneva, suggested an alternative form of words which I am prepared to recommend.

Paragraph 3 of the Preamble would then conclude as follows (vide the words italicised in the Draft-;

” and whereas recognition lias thereby (i.e., by the Treaty of Sevres) been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine, and to the grounds for reconstituting their National Home in that country.”

Simultaneously the Zionists pressed for the concession of preferential rights for themselves in respect of public works, &c, in Article 11.

It was felt unanimously, and was agreed by Mr. Balfour, that there was no ground for making this concession, which ought to be refused. . .

During the last few hours a telegram has been received from Sir H. Samuel, urging that, in order to facilitate the raising of loans by the Palestine Administration, which will otherwise be impossible, words should be added to Article 27, providing that on the termination of the Mandate, the future Government of Palestine shall fully honour the financial obligations incurred by the Palestinian Administration during the period of the Mandate. This appears to be a quite reasonable demand, and I have accordingly added words (italicised at the end of Article 27) in order to meet it. With this explanation, therefore, I hope that the Mandates in the form now submitted may be formally passed and forwarded to the Council of the League.

C. OF K. November 30, 1920.

End/ (Not Continued

(COMMENT)

This MEMO doesn't change a thing. It is neither authoritative or directive in nature.

In all political decisions or this magnitude, there will be a dissenting or minority opinion. Don't let that throw you. This is merely one of them, of which there were many over the next 3 decades.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

The Memorandum confirms that the British agreed, on the threat of the French and Italians would not approve the Palestine Mandate, that Palestine was one of the Class A Mandate and thus the is one of the "certain" "communities" of the former Turkish Empire per the Covenant.

Again, you are out of your depth. Brainwashed actually.