Indigenous Palestinians Were JEWS

[Phoenall]

Rehmani, et al,

This is something I don't understand.

Well I can see that how you are supporting the illegal invasion by jews.

(COMMENT)

Many pro-Palestinians make this remark that it was:

• An "invasion."
• It was "illegal."

I would like to know what definition you use for invasion?

I would like to know what law was broken that makes it illegal?

Most Respectfully,
R

1. The definition of invasion:

"Definition: An unarmed military campaign across national boundaries, with a comparatively long-range objective or duration, in restraint of flagrant injustice, oppression, invasion, or genocide."

2. An invasion of people, from a region to another region, who intend to remove the existing inhabitants of the other region through ethnic cleansing and/or genocide is a crime, hence illegal. Note: The Zionist and subsequently "Transfer Committee" headed by Yosef Weitz were clear on the goal of ethnic cleansing of the non-Jews.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Note: the link above does work.

Did you read your link Abdul, the part that says

The migration of the arabs of the land of Israel was not caused by persecution, violence, expulsion....(it was) a tactic of war on the part of the arabs.


So once again you shoot yourself in the foot and bring evidence that proves you wrong

 

[RoccoR]

Challenger, et al,

Well, we are a little bit closer. I think it is a mutual dissatisfaction on both sides.

Rehmani, et al,

This is something I don't understand.

Well I can see that how you are supporting the illegal invasion by jews.

(COMMENT)

Many pro-Palestinians make this remark that it was:

• An "invasion."
• It was "illegal."

I would like to know what definition you use for invasion?

I would like to know what law was broken that makes it illegal?

Most Respectfully,
R

Seems obvious to me.

"Invasion" = an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity;
an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure that "unwelcome intrusion" is the right term. BUT, clearly the Arab Palestinian did voice objections. A question --- and --- a point of contention is the is revolving around the valid of "another's domain."

Was the territory actually the "domain" of the Arab Palestinian? Or was the Arab Palestinian one fraction (sub-part) of the population that was a habitual resident? "

Who did the Ottoman Empire surrender to and relinquish control to in regards to the territory to which the Mandate was applied?

Armistice of Mudros: Article XVI
Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V.

Treaty of Sevres: Article 132
Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.

Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.

Treaty of Lausanne, Article 16:
Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

The Ottoman/Turkish Government, no matter which instrument of surrender you review, renounce all title over the territory and stipulated that the future of these territories would be determined by the Allied Powers (parties to the treaty). THUS, the Arabs had absolutely NO authority over the territory. Simply put --- it was not their "domain." By treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance and other lawful means, His Majesty has power and jurisdiction within Palestine (the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies).

His Majesty may, by a Commission under His Sign Manual and Signet, appoint a fit person to administer the Government of Palestine under the designation of High Commissioner and Commander-in-Chief or such other designation as His Majesty thinks fit, and the person so appointed is hereinafter referred to as the High Commissioner.
​

THUS: The Allied Powers agreed at the San Remo Conference (1920) that the Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration.

THEN, we can look at "unwelcome intrusion."

The Mandate and the High Commissioner, under the authority of the Allied Powers and the League Council,
facilitate Jewish immigration and the the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship.
​

THUS the duly appointed government over the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, described as Palestine invited and encouraged immigration --- not the "unwelcome invasion.".

Legality however, is more a grey area, and depends where one believes ultimate sovereignty to reside.

(COMMENT)

I agree, this is quite the controversial topic. Assuming a benevolent government, one might agree that the Sovereignty rests with the people. But that is not always true --- no have it been true. It does occur from time to time, but it is not the dominant means of securing sovereignty.

My Thumbnail Approach: (See Chapter 8 --- Sovereignty)

Political sovereignty

• The supreme power is in politics. Political power exists when the people exercised their right to vote. Political sovereignty is the electoral plus all other methods and influence that shape public opinion.

Legal sovereignty

• This is sovereignty in terms of law – refers to that person or body of persons, who according to the law, have the power to give final commands, Any disobedience to the law is followed or result in punishment.

Popular sovereignty

• It refers to the power of the people or masses. Rousseau (the state and the people were one). The people’s power is important to balance the power of the ruler.

Egypt has a government and a sovereignty over its territory; there is no question of this. But it is a very different government than that of China; or the US, Canada, Germany, the UK, and Switzerland. Even North Korea has a government with a sovereign nature. The Russian Federation, just expanded its sovereignty when it annexed Crimea by force. Some would say, that is illegal. None the less, it is a reality. And if no one enforces Article 2(4) of the Charter, then is it really International Law or a guideline?

The bottom line here is about whatever works and affords stability. But they are not all the same.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Challenger, et al,

Well, we are a little bit closer. I think it is a mutual dissatisfaction on both sides.

Rehmani, et al,

This is something I don't understand.

Well I can see that how you are supporting the illegal invasion by jews.

(COMMENT)

Many pro-Palestinians make this remark that it was:

• An "invasion."
• It was "illegal."

I would like to know what definition you use for invasion?

I would like to know what law was broken that makes it illegal?

Most Respectfully,
R

Seems obvious to me.

"Invasion" = an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity;
an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure that "unwelcome intrusion" is the right term. BUT, clearly the Arab Palestinian did voice objections. A question --- and --- a point of contention is the is revolving around the valid of "another's domain."

Was the territory actually the "domain" of the Arab Palestinian? Or was the Arab Palestinian one fraction (sub-part) of the population that was a habitual resident? "

Who did the Ottoman Empire surrender to and relinquish control to in regards to the territory to which the Mandate was applied?

Armistice of Mudros: Article XVI
Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V.

Treaty of Sevres: Article 132
Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.

Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.

Treaty of Lausanne, Article 16:
Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

The Ottoman/Turkish Government, no matter which instrument of surrender you review, renounce all title over the territory and stipulated that the future of these territories would be determined by the Allied Powers (parties to the treaty). THUS, the Arabs had absolutely NO authority over the territory. Simply put --- it was not their "domain." By treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance and other lawful means, His Majesty has power and jurisdiction within Palestine (the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies).

His Majesty may, by a Commission under His Sign Manual and Signet, appoint a fit person to administer the Government of Palestine under the designation of High Commissioner and Commander-in-Chief or such other designation as His Majesty thinks fit, and the person so appointed is hereinafter referred to as the High Commissioner.
​

THUS: The Allied Powers agreed at the San Remo Conference (1920) that the Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration.

THEN, we can look at "unwelcome intrusion."

The Mandate and the High Commissioner, under the authority of the Allied Powers and the League Council,
facilitate Jewish immigration and the the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship.
​

THUS the duly appointed government over the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, described as Palestine invited and encouraged immigration --- not the "unwelcome invasion.".

Legality however, is more a grey area, and depends where one believes ultimate sovereignty to reside.

(COMMENT)

I agree, this is quite the controversial topic. Assuming a benevolent government, one might agree that the Sovereignty rests with the people. But that is not always true --- no have it been true. It does occur from time to time, but it is not the dominant means of securing sovereignty.

My Thumbnail Approach: (See Chapter 8 --- Sovereignty)

Political sovereignty

• The supreme power is in politics. Political power exists when the people exercised their right to vote. Political sovereignty is the electoral plus all other methods and influence that shape public opinion.

Legal sovereignty

• This is sovereignty in terms of law – refers to that person or body of persons, who according to the law, have the power to give final commands, Any disobedience to the law is followed or result in punishment.

Popular sovereignty

• It refers to the power of the people or masses. Rousseau (the state and the people were one). The people’s power is important to balance the power of the ruler.

Egypt has a government and a sovereignty over its territory; there is no question of this. But it is a very different government than that of China; or the US, Canada, Germany, the UK, and Switzerland. Even North Korea has a government with a sovereign nature. The Russian Federation, just expanded its sovereignty when it annexed Crimea by force. Some would say, that is illegal. None the less, it is a reality. And if no one enforces Article 2(4) of the Charter, then is it really International Law or a guideline?

The bottom line here is about whatever works and affords stability. But they are not all the same.

Most Respectfully,
R

I agree, this is quite the controversial topic. Assuming a benevolent government, one might agree that the Sovereignty rests with the people.​

It seems that was the case.

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.

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).

Partition and the Law - 1948​

Nobody gave anything to anybody. When the successor states were released from Turkish rule, the people became the sovereigns in their respective territories.

 

[Phoenall]

Challenger, et al,

Well, we are a little bit closer. I think it is a mutual dissatisfaction on both sides.

Rehmani, et al,

This is something I don't understand.

Well I can see that how you are supporting the illegal invasion by jews.

(COMMENT)

Many pro-Palestinians make this remark that it was:

• An "invasion."
• It was "illegal."

I would like to know what definition you use for invasion?

I would like to know what law was broken that makes it illegal?

Most Respectfully,
R

Seems obvious to me.

"Invasion" = an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity;
an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure that "unwelcome intrusion" is the right term. BUT, clearly the Arab Palestinian did voice objections. A question --- and --- a point of contention is the is revolving around the valid of "another's domain."

Was the territory actually the "domain" of the Arab Palestinian? Or was the Arab Palestinian one fraction (sub-part) of the population that was a habitual resident? "

Who did the Ottoman Empire surrender to and relinquish control to in regards to the territory to which the Mandate was applied?

Armistice of Mudros: Article XVI
Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V.

Treaty of Sevres: Article 132
Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.

Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.

Treaty of Lausanne, Article 16:
Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

The Ottoman/Turkish Government, no matter which instrument of surrender you review, renounce all title over the territory and stipulated that the future of these territories would be determined by the Allied Powers (parties to the treaty). THUS, the Arabs had absolutely NO authority over the territory. Simply put --- it was not their "domain." By treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance and other lawful means, His Majesty has power and jurisdiction within Palestine (the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies).

His Majesty may, by a Commission under His Sign Manual and Signet, appoint a fit person to administer the Government of Palestine under the designation of High Commissioner and Commander-in-Chief or such other designation as His Majesty thinks fit, and the person so appointed is hereinafter referred to as the High Commissioner.
​

THUS: The Allied Powers agreed at the San Remo Conference (1920) that the Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration.

THEN, we can look at "unwelcome intrusion."

The Mandate and the High Commissioner, under the authority of the Allied Powers and the League Council,
facilitate Jewish immigration and the the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship.
​

THUS the duly appointed government over the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, described as Palestine invited and encouraged immigration --- not the "unwelcome invasion.".

Legality however, is more a grey area, and depends where one believes ultimate sovereignty to reside.

(COMMENT)

I agree, this is quite the controversial topic. Assuming a benevolent government, one might agree that the Sovereignty rests with the people. But that is not always true --- no have it been true. It does occur from time to time, but it is not the dominant means of securing sovereignty.

My Thumbnail Approach: (See Chapter 8 --- Sovereignty)

Political sovereignty

• The supreme power is in politics. Political power exists when the people exercised their right to vote. Political sovereignty is the electoral plus all other methods and influence that shape public opinion.

Legal sovereignty

• This is sovereignty in terms of law – refers to that person or body of persons, who according to the law, have the power to give final commands, Any disobedience to the law is followed or result in punishment.

Popular sovereignty

• It refers to the power of the people or masses. Rousseau (the state and the people were one). The people’s power is important to balance the power of the ruler.

Egypt has a government and a sovereignty over its territory; there is no question of this. But it is a very different government than that of China; or the US, Canada, Germany, the UK, and Switzerland. Even North Korea has a government with a sovereign nature. The Russian Federation, just expanded its sovereignty when it annexed Crimea by force. Some would say, that is illegal. None the less, it is a reality. And if no one enforces Article 2(4) of the Charter, then is it really International Law or a guideline?

The bottom line here is about whatever works and affords stability. But they are not all the same.

Most Respectfully,
R

I agree, this is quite the controversial topic. Assuming a benevolent government, one might agree that the Sovereignty rests with the people.​

It seems that was the case.

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.

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).

Partition and the Law - 1948​

Nobody gave anything to anybody. When the successor states were released from Turkish rule, the people became the sovereigns in their respective territories.

Correct and this meant that the Jews were the soveriegns of the Jewish section of Palestine. So why do you oppose this simple action yet defend and support the arab muslims taking land that was not theirs ?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I've seen that UK "Freedom 4 Palestinian" (pro-Palestinian) Web Site.

Challenger, et al,

Well, we are a little bit closer. I think it is a mutual dissatisfaction on both sides.

Rehmani, et al,

This is something I don't understand.

Well I can see that how you are supporting the illegal invasion by jews.

(COMMENT)

Many pro-Palestinians make this remark that it was:

• An "invasion."
• It was "illegal."

I would like to know what definition you use for invasion?

I would like to know what law was broken that makes it illegal?

Most Respectfully,
R

Seems obvious to me.

"Invasion" = an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity;
an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure that "unwelcome intrusion" is the right term. BUT, clearly the Arab Palestinian did voice objections. A question --- and --- a point of contention is the is revolving around the valid of "another's domain."

Was the territory actually the "domain" of the Arab Palestinian? Or was the Arab Palestinian one fraction (sub-part) of the population that was a habitual resident? "

Who did the Ottoman Empire surrender to and relinquish control to in regards to the territory to which the Mandate was applied?

Armistice of Mudros: Article XVI
Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V.

Treaty of Sevres: Article 132
Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.

Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.

Treaty of Lausanne, Article 16:
Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

The Ottoman/Turkish Government, no matter which instrument of surrender you review, renounce all title over the territory and stipulated that the future of these territories would be determined by the Allied Powers (parties to the treaty). THUS, the Arabs had absolutely NO authority over the territory. Simply put --- it was not their "domain." By treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance and other lawful means, His Majesty has power and jurisdiction within Palestine (the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies).

His Majesty may, by a Commission under His Sign Manual and Signet, appoint a fit person to administer the Government of Palestine under the designation of High Commissioner and Commander-in-Chief or such other designation as His Majesty thinks fit, and the person so appointed is hereinafter referred to as the High Commissioner.
​

THUS: The Allied Powers agreed at the San Remo Conference (1920) that the Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration.

THEN, we can look at "unwelcome intrusion."

The Mandate and the High Commissioner, under the authority of the Allied Powers and the League Council,
facilitate Jewish immigration and the the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship.
​

THUS the duly appointed government over the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, described as Palestine invited and encouraged immigration --- not the "unwelcome invasion.".

Legality however, is more a grey area, and depends where one believes ultimate sovereignty to reside.

(COMMENT)

I agree, this is quite the controversial topic. Assuming a benevolent government, one might agree that the Sovereignty rests with the people. But that is not always true --- no have it been true. It does occur from time to time, but it is not the dominant means of securing sovereignty.

My Thumbnail Approach: (See Chapter 8 --- Sovereignty)

Political sovereignty

• The supreme power is in politics. Political power exists when the people exercised their right to vote. Political sovereignty is the electoral plus all other methods and influence that shape public opinion.

Legal sovereignty

• This is sovereignty in terms of law – refers to that person or body of persons, who according to the law, have the power to give final commands, Any disobedience to the law is followed or result in punishment.

Popular sovereignty

• It refers to the power of the people or masses. Rousseau (the state and the people were one). The people’s power is important to balance the power of the ruler.

Egypt has a government and a sovereignty over its territory; there is no question of this. But it is a very different government than that of China; or the US, Canada, Germany, the UK, and Switzerland. Even North Korea has a government with a sovereign nature. The Russian Federation, just expanded its sovereignty when it annexed Crimea by force. Some would say, that is illegal. None the less, it is a reality. And if no one enforces Article 2(4) of the Charter, then is it really International Law or a guideline?

The bottom line here is about whatever works and affords stability. But they are not all the same.

Most Respectfully,
R

I agree, this is quite the controversial topic. Assuming a benevolent government, one might agree that the Sovereignty rests with the people.​

It seems that was the case.

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.

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).

Partition and the Law - 1948​

Nobody gave anything to anybody. When the successor states were released from Turkish rule, the people became the sovereigns in their respective territories.

(COMMENT)

I did not say that the Ottoman Empire gave the territory to the Allied Powers. The Empire surrender and relinquish control of the territory (not just once --- but three times) to the WWI Victors --- the Allied Powers.

Other than a "Pro-Palestinian" Propaganda Site, who else in 1919 believed that. In fact, you will be hard pressed to find any interpretation of Article 22 that guarantees anything to anyone. And while a few passages in IHL reference "self-determination" --- UDHR, the CCPR or the CESCR mention either sovereignty or successor governments. The Treaty of Lausanne speaks directly to the issue, and with the two legal precedents of previous treaties that specifically address the issue.

What is generally agreed upon is that, at some point, all the various Mandates will be self-governing. But the scope and nature is undefined. Like I said, the Palestinian Mandate is not the only Mandate that was partitioned. The Allied Powers wrote the Covenant and the Mandates. They understood their intent and they exercised that intent. The Covenant was not some stone tablets brought down from the Mountain for the Allied Powers to unconditionally observe.

PEEL REPORT:

We have not considered that our terms of reference required us to undertake the detailed and lengthy research among the documents of 20 years ago which would be needed for a full re-examination of this issue. We think it sufficient for the purposes of this Report to state that the British Government have never accepted the Arab case. When it was first formally presented by the Arab Delegation in London in 1922, the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Churchill) replied as follows: ”

That Ietter [Sir H. McMahon’s letter of the 24th October, ‘1915] is quoted as conveying the promise to the Sherif of Mecca to recognize and support the independence of the Arabs within the territories proposed by him. But this promise was given subject to a reservation made in the same letter, which excluded from its scope, among, other territories, the portions of Syria lying to the west of the district of Damascus. This reservation has always been regarded by His Majesty’s Government as covering the vilayet of Beirut and the independent Sanjak of Jerusalem. The whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sir H. McMahon’s pledge.”​

And you need to consider:

20. We must now consider what the Balfour Declaration meant. We have been permitted to examine the records which bear upon the question and it is clear to us that the words ” the establishment m Palestine of a National Home ” were the outcome of a compromise between those Ministers who contemplated the ultimate establishment of a Jewish State and those who did not. It is obvious in any case that His Majesty’s Government could not commit itself to the establishment of a Jewish State. It couId only undertake to facilitate the growth of a Home. It would depend mainly on the zeal and enterprise of the Jews whether the Home would grow big enough to become a State. Mr. Lloyd George, who was Prime Minister at the time, informed us in evidence that: - ”

The idea was, and this was the interpretation put upon it at the time, that a Jewish State was not to be set up immediately by the Peace Treaty without reference to the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants. On the other hand, it was contemplated that when the time arrived for according representative institutions to Palestine, if the Jews had meanwhile responded to the opportunity afforded them by the idea of a national home and had become a definite majority of the inhabitants, then PaIestine would thus become a Jewish Commonwealth. ’ ’
​

21. Thus His Majesty’s Government evidently realized that a Jewish State might in course of time be established, but it was not in a position to say that this would happen, still less to bring it about of its own motion. The Zionist leaders, for their part, recognized that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration, and so it was understood elsewhere. ” I am persuaded ’ ’ , said President Wilson on the 3rd March, 1919, ’ ‘ that the Allied nations, with the fullest concurrence of our own Government and people, are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundations of a Jewish Commonwealth “. Smuts, who had been a member of the Imperial War Cabinet when the Declaration was published, speaking at Johannesburg on the 3rd November, 1919, foretold an increasing stream of * Jewish immigration into Palestine and ” in generations to come a great Jewish State rising there once more “. Lord Robert Cecil in 1917, Sir Herbert Samuel in 1919, and Mr. Winston Churchill in 1920 spoke or wrote in terms that could only mean that they contemplated the eventual establishment of a Jewish State, Leading British newspapers were equally explicit in their comments on the Declaration.
​

What is universally accepted (a very big concept) and was universally accept then, may be very much different. REMEMBER: The British Government have never accepted the Arab case.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I've seen that UK "Freedom 4 Palestinian" (pro-Palestinian) Web Site.

Challenger, et al,

Well, we are a little bit closer. I think it is a mutual dissatisfaction on both sides.

Rehmani, et al,

This is something I don't understand.

Well I can see that how you are supporting the illegal invasion by jews.

(COMMENT)

Many pro-Palestinians make this remark that it was:

• An "invasion."
• It was "illegal."

I would like to know what definition you use for invasion?

I would like to know what law was broken that makes it illegal?

Most Respectfully,
R

Seems obvious to me.

"Invasion" = an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity;
an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure that "unwelcome intrusion" is the right term. BUT, clearly the Arab Palestinian did voice objections. A question --- and --- a point of contention is the is revolving around the valid of "another's domain."

Was the territory actually the "domain" of the Arab Palestinian? Or was the Arab Palestinian one fraction (sub-part) of the population that was a habitual resident? "

Who did the Ottoman Empire surrender to and relinquish control to in regards to the territory to which the Mandate was applied?

Armistice of Mudros: Article XVI
Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V.

Treaty of Sevres: Article 132
Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.

Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.

Treaty of Lausanne, Article 16:
Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

The Ottoman/Turkish Government, no matter which instrument of surrender you review, renounce all title over the territory and stipulated that the future of these territories would be determined by the Allied Powers (parties to the treaty). THUS, the Arabs had absolutely NO authority over the territory. Simply put --- it was not their "domain." By treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance and other lawful means, His Majesty has power and jurisdiction within Palestine (the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies).

His Majesty may, by a Commission under His Sign Manual and Signet, appoint a fit person to administer the Government of Palestine under the designation of High Commissioner and Commander-in-Chief or such other designation as His Majesty thinks fit, and the person so appointed is hereinafter referred to as the High Commissioner.
​

THUS: The Allied Powers agreed at the San Remo Conference (1920) that the Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration.

THEN, we can look at "unwelcome intrusion."

The Mandate and the High Commissioner, under the authority of the Allied Powers and the League Council,
facilitate Jewish immigration and the the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship.
​

THUS the duly appointed government over the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, described as Palestine invited and encouraged immigration --- not the "unwelcome invasion.".

Legality however, is more a grey area, and depends where one believes ultimate sovereignty to reside.

(COMMENT)

I agree, this is quite the controversial topic. Assuming a benevolent government, one might agree that the Sovereignty rests with the people. But that is not always true --- no have it been true. It does occur from time to time, but it is not the dominant means of securing sovereignty.

My Thumbnail Approach: (See Chapter 8 --- Sovereignty)

Political sovereignty

• The supreme power is in politics. Political power exists when the people exercised their right to vote. Political sovereignty is the electoral plus all other methods and influence that shape public opinion.

Legal sovereignty

• This is sovereignty in terms of law – refers to that person or body of persons, who according to the law, have the power to give final commands, Any disobedience to the law is followed or result in punishment.

Popular sovereignty

• It refers to the power of the people or masses. Rousseau (the state and the people were one). The people’s power is important to balance the power of the ruler.

Egypt has a government and a sovereignty over its territory; there is no question of this. But it is a very different government than that of China; or the US, Canada, Germany, the UK, and Switzerland. Even North Korea has a government with a sovereign nature. The Russian Federation, just expanded its sovereignty when it annexed Crimea by force. Some would say, that is illegal. None the less, it is a reality. And if no one enforces Article 2(4) of the Charter, then is it really International Law or a guideline?

The bottom line here is about whatever works and affords stability. But they are not all the same.

Most Respectfully,
R

I agree, this is quite the controversial topic. Assuming a benevolent government, one might agree that the Sovereignty rests with the people.​

It seems that was the case.

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.

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).

Partition and the Law - 1948​

Nobody gave anything to anybody. When the successor states were released from Turkish rule, the people became the sovereigns in their respective territories.

(COMMENT)

I did not say that the Ottoman Empire gave the territory to the Allied Powers. The Empire surrender and relinquish control of the territory (not just once --- but three times) to the WWI Victors --- the Allied Powers.

Other than a "Pro-Palestinian" Propaganda Site, who else in 1919 believed that. In fact, you will be hard pressed to find any interpretation of Article 22 that guarantees anything to anyone. And while a few passages in IHL reference "self-determination" --- UDHR, the CCPR or the CESCR mention either sovereignty or successor governments. The Treaty of Lausanne speaks directly to the issue, and with the two legal precedents of previous treaties that specifically address the issue.

What is generally agreed upon is that, at some point, all the various Mandates will be self-governing. But the scope and nature is undefined. Like I said, the Palestinian Mandate is not the only Mandate that was partitioned. The Allied Powers wrote the Covenant and the Mandates. They understood their intent and they exercised that intent. The Covenant was not some stone tablets brought down from the Mountain for the Allied Powers to unconditionally observe.

PEEL REPORT:

We have not considered that our terms of reference required us to undertake the detailed and lengthy research among the documents of 20 years ago which would be needed for a full re-examination of this issue. We think it sufficient for the purposes of this Report to state that the British Government have never accepted the Arab case. When it was first formally presented by the Arab Delegation in London in 1922, the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Churchill) replied as follows: ”

That Ietter [Sir H. McMahon’s letter of the 24th October, ‘1915] is quoted as conveying the promise to the Sherif of Mecca to recognize and support the independence of the Arabs within the territories proposed by him. But this promise was given subject to a reservation made in the same letter, which excluded from its scope, among, other territories, the portions of Syria lying to the west of the district of Damascus. This reservation has always been regarded by His Majesty’s Government as covering the vilayet of Beirut and the independent Sanjak of Jerusalem. The whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sir H. McMahon’s pledge.”​

And you need to consider:

20. We must now consider what the Balfour Declaration meant. We have been permitted to examine the records which bear upon the question and it is clear to us that the words ” the establishment m Palestine of a National Home ” were the outcome of a compromise between those Ministers who contemplated the ultimate establishment of a Jewish State and those who did not. It is obvious in any case that His Majesty’s Government could not commit itself to the establishment of a Jewish State. It couId only undertake to facilitate the growth of a Home. It would depend mainly on the zeal and enterprise of the Jews whether the Home would grow big enough to become a State. Mr. Lloyd George, who was Prime Minister at the time, informed us in evidence that: - ”

The idea was, and this was the interpretation put upon it at the time, that a Jewish State was not to be set up immediately by the Peace Treaty without reference to the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants. On the other hand, it was contemplated that when the time arrived for according representative institutions to Palestine, if the Jews had meanwhile responded to the opportunity afforded them by the idea of a national home and had become a definite majority of the inhabitants, then PaIestine would thus become a Jewish Commonwealth. ’ ’
​

21. Thus His Majesty’s Government evidently realized that a Jewish State might in course of time be established, but it was not in a position to say that this would happen, still less to bring it about of its own motion. The Zionist leaders, for their part, recognized that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration, and so it was understood elsewhere. ” I am persuaded ’ ’ , said President Wilson on the 3rd March, 1919, ’ ‘ that the Allied nations, with the fullest concurrence of our own Government and people, are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundations of a Jewish Commonwealth “. Smuts, who had been a member of the Imperial War Cabinet when the Declaration was published, speaking at Johannesburg on the 3rd November, 1919, foretold an increasing stream of * Jewish immigration into Palestine and ” in generations to come a great Jewish State rising there once more “. Lord Robert Cecil in 1917, Sir Herbert Samuel in 1919, and Mr. Winston Churchill in 1920 spoke or wrote in terms that could only mean that they contemplated the eventual establishment of a Jewish State, Leading British newspapers were equally explicit in their comments on the Declaration.​

What is universally accepted (a very big concept) and was universally accept then, may be very much different. REMEMBER: The British Government have never accepted the Arab case.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

Britain was an old colonial power. They never recognized the rights of natives anywhere.

So it is no surprise that they blew off the rights of the Palestinians.

Violating people's rights do not negate those rights.

 

[MJB12741]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I've seen that UK "Freedom 4 Palestinian" (pro-Palestinian) Web Site.

Challenger, et al,

Well, we are a little bit closer. I think it is a mutual dissatisfaction on both sides.

Rehmani, et al,

This is something I don't understand.

(COMMENT)

Many pro-Palestinians make this remark that it was:

• An "invasion."
• It was "illegal."

I would like to know what definition you use for invasion?

I would like to know what law was broken that makes it illegal?

Most Respectfully,
R

Seems obvious to me.

"Invasion" = an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity;
an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure that "unwelcome intrusion" is the right term. BUT, clearly the Arab Palestinian did voice objections. A question --- and --- a point of contention is the is revolving around the valid of "another's domain."

Was the territory actually the "domain" of the Arab Palestinian? Or was the Arab Palestinian one fraction (sub-part) of the population that was a habitual resident? "

Who did the Ottoman Empire surrender to and relinquish control to in regards to the territory to which the Mandate was applied?

Armistice of Mudros: Article XVI
Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V.

Treaty of Sevres: Article 132
Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.

Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.

Treaty of Lausanne, Article 16:
Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

The Ottoman/Turkish Government, no matter which instrument of surrender you review, renounce all title over the territory and stipulated that the future of these territories would be determined by the Allied Powers (parties to the treaty). THUS, the Arabs had absolutely NO authority over the territory. Simply put --- it was not their "domain." By treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance and other lawful means, His Majesty has power and jurisdiction within Palestine (the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies).

His Majesty may, by a Commission under His Sign Manual and Signet, appoint a fit person to administer the Government of Palestine under the designation of High Commissioner and Commander-in-Chief or such other designation as His Majesty thinks fit, and the person so appointed is hereinafter referred to as the High Commissioner.
​

THUS: The Allied Powers agreed at the San Remo Conference (1920) that the Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration.

THEN, we can look at "unwelcome intrusion."

The Mandate and the High Commissioner, under the authority of the Allied Powers and the League Council,
facilitate Jewish immigration and the the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship.
​

THUS the duly appointed government over the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, described as Palestine invited and encouraged immigration --- not the "unwelcome invasion.".

Legality however, is more a grey area, and depends where one believes ultimate sovereignty to reside.

(COMMENT)

I agree, this is quite the controversial topic. Assuming a benevolent government, one might agree that the Sovereignty rests with the people. But that is not always true --- no have it been true. It does occur from time to time, but it is not the dominant means of securing sovereignty.

My Thumbnail Approach: (See Chapter 8 --- Sovereignty)

Political sovereignty

• The supreme power is in politics. Political power exists when the people exercised their right to vote. Political sovereignty is the electoral plus all other methods and influence that shape public opinion.

Legal sovereignty

• This is sovereignty in terms of law – refers to that person or body of persons, who according to the law, have the power to give final commands, Any disobedience to the law is followed or result in punishment.

Popular sovereignty

• It refers to the power of the people or masses. Rousseau (the state and the people were one). The people’s power is important to balance the power of the ruler.

Egypt has a government and a sovereignty over its territory; there is no question of this. But it is a very different government than that of China; or the US, Canada, Germany, the UK, and Switzerland. Even North Korea has a government with a sovereign nature. The Russian Federation, just expanded its sovereignty when it annexed Crimea by force. Some would say, that is illegal. None the less, it is a reality. And if no one enforces Article 2(4) of the Charter, then is it really International Law or a guideline?

The bottom line here is about whatever works and affords stability. But they are not all the same.

Most Respectfully,
R

I agree, this is quite the controversial topic. Assuming a benevolent government, one might agree that the Sovereignty rests with the people.​

It seems that was the case.

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.

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).

Partition and the Law - 1948​

Nobody gave anything to anybody. When the successor states were released from Turkish rule, the people became the sovereigns in their respective territories.

(COMMENT)

I did not say that the Ottoman Empire gave the territory to the Allied Powers. The Empire surrender and relinquish control of the territory (not just once --- but three times) to the WWI Victors --- the Allied Powers.

Other than a "Pro-Palestinian" Propaganda Site, who else in 1919 believed that. In fact, you will be hard pressed to find any interpretation of Article 22 that guarantees anything to anyone. And while a few passages in IHL reference "self-determination" --- UDHR, the CCPR or the CESCR mention either sovereignty or successor governments. The Treaty of Lausanne speaks directly to the issue, and with the two legal precedents of previous treaties that specifically address the issue.

What is generally agreed upon is that, at some point, all the various Mandates will be self-governing. But the scope and nature is undefined. Like I said, the Palestinian Mandate is not the only Mandate that was partitioned. The Allied Powers wrote the Covenant and the Mandates. They understood their intent and they exercised that intent. The Covenant was not some stone tablets brought down from the Mountain for the Allied Powers to unconditionally observe.

PEEL REPORT:

We have not considered that our terms of reference required us to undertake the detailed and lengthy research among the documents of 20 years ago which would be needed for a full re-examination of this issue. We think it sufficient for the purposes of this Report to state that the British Government have never accepted the Arab case. When it was first formally presented by the Arab Delegation in London in 1922, the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Churchill) replied as follows: ”

That Ietter [Sir H. McMahon’s letter of the 24th October, ‘1915] is quoted as conveying the promise to the Sherif of Mecca to recognize and support the independence of the Arabs within the territories proposed by him. But this promise was given subject to a reservation made in the same letter, which excluded from its scope, among, other territories, the portions of Syria lying to the west of the district of Damascus. This reservation has always been regarded by His Majesty’s Government as covering the vilayet of Beirut and the independent Sanjak of Jerusalem. The whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sir H. McMahon’s pledge.”​

And you need to consider:

20. We must now consider what the Balfour Declaration meant. We have been permitted to examine the records which bear upon the question and it is clear to us that the words ” the establishment m Palestine of a National Home ” were the outcome of a compromise between those Ministers who contemplated the ultimate establishment of a Jewish State and those who did not. It is obvious in any case that His Majesty’s Government could not commit itself to the establishment of a Jewish State. It couId only undertake to facilitate the growth of a Home. It would depend mainly on the zeal and enterprise of the Jews whether the Home would grow big enough to become a State. Mr. Lloyd George, who was Prime Minister at the time, informed us in evidence that: - ”

The idea was, and this was the interpretation put upon it at the time, that a Jewish State was not to be set up immediately by the Peace Treaty without reference to the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants. On the other hand, it was contemplated that when the time arrived for according representative institutions to Palestine, if the Jews had meanwhile responded to the opportunity afforded them by the idea of a national home and had become a definite majority of the inhabitants, then PaIestine would thus become a Jewish Commonwealth. ’ ’
​

21. Thus His Majesty’s Government evidently realized that a Jewish State might in course of time be established, but it was not in a position to say that this would happen, still less to bring it about of its own motion. The Zionist leaders, for their part, recognized that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration, and so it was understood elsewhere. ” I am persuaded ’ ’ , said President Wilson on the 3rd March, 1919, ’ ‘ that the Allied nations, with the fullest concurrence of our own Government and people, are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundations of a Jewish Commonwealth “. Smuts, who had been a member of the Imperial War Cabinet when the Declaration was published, speaking at Johannesburg on the 3rd November, 1919, foretold an increasing stream of * Jewish immigration into Palestine and ” in generations to come a great Jewish State rising there once more “. Lord Robert Cecil in 1917, Sir Herbert Samuel in 1919, and Mr. Winston Churchill in 1920 spoke or wrote in terms that could only mean that they contemplated the eventual establishment of a Jewish State, Leading British newspapers were equally explicit in their comments on the Declaration.​

What is universally accepted (a very big concept) and was universally accept then, may be very much different. REMEMBER: The British Government have never accepted the Arab case.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

Britain was an old colonial power. They never recognized the rights of natives anywhere.

So it is no surprise that they blew off the rights of the Palestinians.

Violating people's rights do not negate those rights.

So are you saying the non native Muslim Palestinians have the rights to attack & kill the indigenous Jewiish Palestinians & claim it is their land/

 

[montelatici]

The Muslim and Christian Palestinians are the native people of Palestine moron.

 

[MJB12741]

The Muslim and Christian Palestinians are the native people of Palestine moron.

Oh now I get it. You see you Zionists, the Al Aqsa Mosque & Church of the Nativity came before Solomon's Temple. Amazing what we can learn here from Monte.

 

[Challenger]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I've seen that UK "Freedom 4 Palestinian" (pro-Palestinian) Web Site.

Challenger, et al,

Well, we are a little bit closer. I think it is a mutual dissatisfaction on both sides.

Seems obvious to me.

"Invasion" = an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity;
an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure that "unwelcome intrusion" is the right term. BUT, clearly the Arab Palestinian did voice objections. A question --- and --- a point of contention is the is revolving around the valid of "another's domain."

Was the territory actually the "domain" of the Arab Palestinian? Or was the Arab Palestinian one fraction (sub-part) of the population that was a habitual resident? "

Who did the Ottoman Empire surrender to and relinquish control to in regards to the territory to which the Mandate was applied?

Armistice of Mudros: Article XVI
Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V.

Treaty of Sevres: Article 132
Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.

Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.

Treaty of Lausanne, Article 16:
Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

The Ottoman/Turkish Government, no matter which instrument of surrender you review, renounce all title over the territory and stipulated that the future of these territories would be determined by the Allied Powers (parties to the treaty). THUS, the Arabs had absolutely NO authority over the territory. Simply put --- it was not their "domain." By treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance and other lawful means, His Majesty has power and jurisdiction within Palestine (the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies).

His Majesty may, by a Commission under His Sign Manual and Signet, appoint a fit person to administer the Government of Palestine under the designation of High Commissioner and Commander-in-Chief or such other designation as His Majesty thinks fit, and the person so appointed is hereinafter referred to as the High Commissioner.
​

THUS: The Allied Powers agreed at the San Remo Conference (1920) that the Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration.

THEN, we can look at "unwelcome intrusion."

The Mandate and the High Commissioner, under the authority of the Allied Powers and the League Council,
facilitate Jewish immigration and the the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship.
​

THUS the duly appointed government over the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, described as Palestine invited and encouraged immigration --- not the "unwelcome invasion.".

Legality however, is more a grey area, and depends where one believes ultimate sovereignty to reside.

(COMMENT)

I agree, this is quite the controversial topic. Assuming a benevolent government, one might agree that the Sovereignty rests with the people. But that is not always true --- no have it been true. It does occur from time to time, but it is not the dominant means of securing sovereignty.

My Thumbnail Approach: (See Chapter 8 --- Sovereignty)

Political sovereignty

• The supreme power is in politics. Political power exists when the people exercised their right to vote. Political sovereignty is the electoral plus all other methods and influence that shape public opinion.

Legal sovereignty

• This is sovereignty in terms of law – refers to that person or body of persons, who according to the law, have the power to give final commands, Any disobedience to the law is followed or result in punishment.

Popular sovereignty

• It refers to the power of the people or masses. Rousseau (the state and the people were one). The people’s power is important to balance the power of the ruler.

Egypt has a government and a sovereignty over its territory; there is no question of this. But it is a very different government than that of China; or the US, Canada, Germany, the UK, and Switzerland. Even North Korea has a government with a sovereign nature. The Russian Federation, just expanded its sovereignty when it annexed Crimea by force. Some would say, that is illegal. None the less, it is a reality. And if no one enforces Article 2(4) of the Charter, then is it really International Law or a guideline?

The bottom line here is about whatever works and affords stability. But they are not all the same.

Most Respectfully,
R

I agree, this is quite the controversial topic. Assuming a benevolent government, one might agree that the Sovereignty rests with the people.​

It seems that was the case.

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.

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).

Partition and the Law - 1948​

Nobody gave anything to anybody. When the successor states were released from Turkish rule, the people became the sovereigns in their respective territories.

(COMMENT)

I did not say that the Ottoman Empire gave the territory to the Allied Powers. The Empire surrender and relinquish control of the territory (not just once --- but three times) to the WWI Victors --- the Allied Powers.

Other than a "Pro-Palestinian" Propaganda Site, who else in 1919 believed that. In fact, you will be hard pressed to find any interpretation of Article 22 that guarantees anything to anyone. And while a few passages in IHL reference "self-determination" --- UDHR, the CCPR or the CESCR mention either sovereignty or successor governments. The Treaty of Lausanne speaks directly to the issue, and with the two legal precedents of previous treaties that specifically address the issue.

What is generally agreed upon is that, at some point, all the various Mandates will be self-governing. But the scope and nature is undefined. Like I said, the Palestinian Mandate is not the only Mandate that was partitioned. The Allied Powers wrote the Covenant and the Mandates. They understood their intent and they exercised that intent. The Covenant was not some stone tablets brought down from the Mountain for the Allied Powers to unconditionally observe.

PEEL REPORT:

We have not considered that our terms of reference required us to undertake the detailed and lengthy research among the documents of 20 years ago which would be needed for a full re-examination of this issue. We think it sufficient for the purposes of this Report to state that the British Government have never accepted the Arab case. When it was first formally presented by the Arab Delegation in London in 1922, the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Churchill) replied as follows: ”

That Ietter [Sir H. McMahon’s letter of the 24th October, ‘1915] is quoted as conveying the promise to the Sherif of Mecca to recognize and support the independence of the Arabs within the territories proposed by him. But this promise was given subject to a reservation made in the same letter, which excluded from its scope, among, other territories, the portions of Syria lying to the west of the district of Damascus. This reservation has always been regarded by His Majesty’s Government as covering the vilayet of Beirut and the independent Sanjak of Jerusalem. The whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sir H. McMahon’s pledge.”​

And you need to consider:

20. We must now consider what the Balfour Declaration meant. We have been permitted to examine the records which bear upon the question and it is clear to us that the words ” the establishment m Palestine of a National Home ” were the outcome of a compromise between those Ministers who contemplated the ultimate establishment of a Jewish State and those who did not. It is obvious in any case that His Majesty’s Government could not commit itself to the establishment of a Jewish State. It couId only undertake to facilitate the growth of a Home. It would depend mainly on the zeal and enterprise of the Jews whether the Home would grow big enough to become a State. Mr. Lloyd George, who was Prime Minister at the time, informed us in evidence that: - ”

The idea was, and this was the interpretation put upon it at the time, that a Jewish State was not to be set up immediately by the Peace Treaty without reference to the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants. On the other hand, it was contemplated that when the time arrived for according representative institutions to Palestine, if the Jews had meanwhile responded to the opportunity afforded them by the idea of a national home and had become a definite majority of the inhabitants, then PaIestine would thus become a Jewish Commonwealth. ’ ’
​

21. Thus His Majesty’s Government evidently realized that a Jewish State might in course of time be established, but it was not in a position to say that this would happen, still less to bring it about of its own motion. The Zionist leaders, for their part, recognized that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration, and so it was understood elsewhere. ” I am persuaded ’ ’ , said President Wilson on the 3rd March, 1919, ’ ‘ that the Allied nations, with the fullest concurrence of our own Government and people, are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundations of a Jewish Commonwealth “. Smuts, who had been a member of the Imperial War Cabinet when the Declaration was published, speaking at Johannesburg on the 3rd November, 1919, foretold an increasing stream of * Jewish immigration into Palestine and ” in generations to come a great Jewish State rising there once more “. Lord Robert Cecil in 1917, Sir Herbert Samuel in 1919, and Mr. Winston Churchill in 1920 spoke or wrote in terms that could only mean that they contemplated the eventual establishment of a Jewish State, Leading British newspapers were equally explicit in their comments on the Declaration.​

What is universally accepted (a very big concept) and was universally accept then, may be very much different. REMEMBER: The British Government have never accepted the Arab case.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

Britain was an old colonial power. They never recognized the rights of natives anywhere.

So it is no surprise that they blew off the rights of the Palestinians.

Violating people's rights do not negate those rights.

So are you saying the non native Muslim Palestinians have the rights to attack & kill the indigenous Jewiish Palestinians & claim it is their land/

No the indigenous Palestinian population (Muslim, Druze, Christian and Jewish), has the right to defend itself against the continued European Zionist colonisation of their land, by any means available to them.

 

[Challenger]

Was the territory actually the "domain" of the Arab Palestinian?

If we're quibbling about terms here, let's clarify that indigenous Palestinians are more "Arabised" than "Arab". The people of Palestine adopted Arabic culture in the centuries following the Muslim conquest. Ethnic Arabs never surplanted the local population; ethnic Arab migration on any substantial scale took place only in post conquest Mesopotamia, elswhere there is no evidence of migration on any significant scale. To use the term "Arab Palestinian" as an ethnic/racial term is therefore inaccurate.

The use of the word "domain" in the definition I found is serendipetous; as it accurately encapsulates who had the real power in the area. From the 13th until the 20th century, at least, Palestine was effectively "ruled" by several notable families/clans. Ottoman Beys and their entourages may have been the official rulers and governors, but they could get nothing done without the consent and cooperation of these Palestinian clans; Palestine was in fact their domain.

 

[Challenger]

The Muslim and Christian Palestinians are the native people of Palestine moron.

Oh now I get it. You see you Zionists, the Al Aqsa Mosque & Church of the Nativity came before Solomon's Temple. Amazing what we can learn here from Monte.

Well at least those two structures are tangible. There is absolutely no archaological evidence for the existence of Solomon's temple, none, nada, zip.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I've seen that UK "Freedom 4 Palestinian" (pro-Palestinian) Web Site.

Challenger, et al,

Well, we are a little bit closer. I think it is a mutual dissatisfaction on both sides.

Rehmani, et al,

This is something I don't understand.

(COMMENT)

Many pro-Palestinians make this remark that it was:

• An "invasion."
• It was "illegal."

I would like to know what definition you use for invasion?

I would like to know what law was broken that makes it illegal?

Most Respectfully,
R

Seems obvious to me.

"Invasion" = an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity;
an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure that "unwelcome intrusion" is the right term. BUT, clearly the Arab Palestinian did voice objections. A question --- and --- a point of contention is the is revolving around the valid of "another's domain."

Was the territory actually the "domain" of the Arab Palestinian? Or was the Arab Palestinian one fraction (sub-part) of the population that was a habitual resident? "

Who did the Ottoman Empire surrender to and relinquish control to in regards to the territory to which the Mandate was applied?

Armistice of Mudros: Article XVI
Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V.

Treaty of Sevres: Article 132
Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.

Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.

Treaty of Lausanne, Article 16:
Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

The Ottoman/Turkish Government, no matter which instrument of surrender you review, renounce all title over the territory and stipulated that the future of these territories would be determined by the Allied Powers (parties to the treaty). THUS, the Arabs had absolutely NO authority over the territory. Simply put --- it was not their "domain." By treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance and other lawful means, His Majesty has power and jurisdiction within Palestine (the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies).

His Majesty may, by a Commission under His Sign Manual and Signet, appoint a fit person to administer the Government of Palestine under the designation of High Commissioner and Commander-in-Chief or such other designation as His Majesty thinks fit, and the person so appointed is hereinafter referred to as the High Commissioner.
​

THUS: The Allied Powers agreed at the San Remo Conference (1920) that the Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration.

THEN, we can look at "unwelcome intrusion."

The Mandate and the High Commissioner, under the authority of the Allied Powers and the League Council,
facilitate Jewish immigration and the the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship.
​

THUS the duly appointed government over the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, described as Palestine invited and encouraged immigration --- not the "unwelcome invasion.".

Legality however, is more a grey area, and depends where one believes ultimate sovereignty to reside.

(COMMENT)

I agree, this is quite the controversial topic. Assuming a benevolent government, one might agree that the Sovereignty rests with the people. But that is not always true --- no have it been true. It does occur from time to time, but it is not the dominant means of securing sovereignty.

My Thumbnail Approach: (See Chapter 8 --- Sovereignty)

Political sovereignty

• The supreme power is in politics. Political power exists when the people exercised their right to vote. Political sovereignty is the electoral plus all other methods and influence that shape public opinion.

Legal sovereignty

• This is sovereignty in terms of law – refers to that person or body of persons, who according to the law, have the power to give final commands, Any disobedience to the law is followed or result in punishment.

Popular sovereignty

• It refers to the power of the people or masses. Rousseau (the state and the people were one). The people’s power is important to balance the power of the ruler.

Egypt has a government and a sovereignty over its territory; there is no question of this. But it is a very different government than that of China; or the US, Canada, Germany, the UK, and Switzerland. Even North Korea has a government with a sovereign nature. The Russian Federation, just expanded its sovereignty when it annexed Crimea by force. Some would say, that is illegal. None the less, it is a reality. And if no one enforces Article 2(4) of the Charter, then is it really International Law or a guideline?

The bottom line here is about whatever works and affords stability. But they are not all the same.

Most Respectfully,
R

I agree, this is quite the controversial topic. Assuming a benevolent government, one might agree that the Sovereignty rests with the people.​

It seems that was the case.

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.

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).

Partition and the Law - 1948​

Nobody gave anything to anybody. When the successor states were released from Turkish rule, the people became the sovereigns in their respective territories.

(COMMENT)

I did not say that the Ottoman Empire gave the territory to the Allied Powers. The Empire surrender and relinquish control of the territory (not just once --- but three times) to the WWI Victors --- the Allied Powers.

Other than a "Pro-Palestinian" Propaganda Site, who else in 1919 believed that. In fact, you will be hard pressed to find any interpretation of Article 22 that guarantees anything to anyone. And while a few passages in IHL reference "self-determination" --- UDHR, the CCPR or the CESCR mention either sovereignty or successor governments. The Treaty of Lausanne speaks directly to the issue, and with the two legal precedents of previous treaties that specifically address the issue.

What is generally agreed upon is that, at some point, all the various Mandates will be self-governing. But the scope and nature is undefined. Like I said, the Palestinian Mandate is not the only Mandate that was partitioned. The Allied Powers wrote the Covenant and the Mandates. They understood their intent and they exercised that intent. The Covenant was not some stone tablets brought down from the Mountain for the Allied Powers to unconditionally observe.

PEEL REPORT:

We have not considered that our terms of reference required us to undertake the detailed and lengthy research among the documents of 20 years ago which would be needed for a full re-examination of this issue. We think it sufficient for the purposes of this Report to state that the British Government have never accepted the Arab case. When it was first formally presented by the Arab Delegation in London in 1922, the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Churchill) replied as follows: ”

That Ietter [Sir H. McMahon’s letter of the 24th October, ‘1915] is quoted as conveying the promise to the Sherif of Mecca to recognize and support the independence of the Arabs within the territories proposed by him. But this promise was given subject to a reservation made in the same letter, which excluded from its scope, among, other territories, the portions of Syria lying to the west of the district of Damascus. This reservation has always been regarded by His Majesty’s Government as covering the vilayet of Beirut and the independent Sanjak of Jerusalem. The whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sir H. McMahon’s pledge.”​

And you need to consider:

20. We must now consider what the Balfour Declaration meant. We have been permitted to examine the records which bear upon the question and it is clear to us that the words ” the establishment m Palestine of a National Home ” were the outcome of a compromise between those Ministers who contemplated the ultimate establishment of a Jewish State and those who did not. It is obvious in any case that His Majesty’s Government could not commit itself to the establishment of a Jewish State. It couId only undertake to facilitate the growth of a Home. It would depend mainly on the zeal and enterprise of the Jews whether the Home would grow big enough to become a State. Mr. Lloyd George, who was Prime Minister at the time, informed us in evidence that: - ”

The idea was, and this was the interpretation put upon it at the time, that a Jewish State was not to be set up immediately by the Peace Treaty without reference to the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants. On the other hand, it was contemplated that when the time arrived for according representative institutions to Palestine, if the Jews had meanwhile responded to the opportunity afforded them by the idea of a national home and had become a definite majority of the inhabitants, then PaIestine would thus become a Jewish Commonwealth. ’ ’
​

21. Thus His Majesty’s Government evidently realized that a Jewish State might in course of time be established, but it was not in a position to say that this would happen, still less to bring it about of its own motion. The Zionist leaders, for their part, recognized that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration, and so it was understood elsewhere. ” I am persuaded ’ ’ , said President Wilson on the 3rd March, 1919, ’ ‘ that the Allied nations, with the fullest concurrence of our own Government and people, are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundations of a Jewish Commonwealth “. Smuts, who had been a member of the Imperial War Cabinet when the Declaration was published, speaking at Johannesburg on the 3rd November, 1919, foretold an increasing stream of * Jewish immigration into Palestine and ” in generations to come a great Jewish State rising there once more “. Lord Robert Cecil in 1917, Sir Herbert Samuel in 1919, and Mr. Winston Churchill in 1920 spoke or wrote in terms that could only mean that they contemplated the eventual establishment of a Jewish State, Leading British newspapers were equally explicit in their comments on the Declaration.​

What is universally accepted (a very big concept) and was universally accept then, may be very much different. REMEMBER: The British Government have never accepted the Arab case.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

Britain was an old colonial power. They never recognized the rights of natives anywhere.

So it is no surprise that they blew off the rights of the Palestinians.

Violating people's rights do not negate those rights.

Go back to 1920 and detail just what rights a defeated enemy had at the end of a war. Once again you attempt to use human and civil rights of today in 1920 because there was no actual rights in those days. The only rights they had was to do as they were told or face the full force of the authorities.

 

[Phoenall]

The Muslim and Christian Palestinians are the native people of Palestine moron.

And yet they had been evicted numerous times over the centuries. The arab muslims only held the land for 22 years until they were evicted/ethnically cleansed by the Crusaders in 1099, never to return as sovereigns.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I've seen that UK "Freedom 4 Palestinian" (pro-Palestinian) Web Site.

Challenger, et al,

Well, we are a little bit closer. I think it is a mutual dissatisfaction on both sides.

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure that "unwelcome intrusion" is the right term. BUT, clearly the Arab Palestinian did voice objections. A question --- and --- a point of contention is the is revolving around the valid of "another's domain."

Was the territory actually the "domain" of the Arab Palestinian? Or was the Arab Palestinian one fraction (sub-part) of the population that was a habitual resident? "

Who did the Ottoman Empire surrender to and relinquish control to in regards to the territory to which the Mandate was applied?

Armistice of Mudros: Article XVI
Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V.

Treaty of Sevres: Article 132
Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.

Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.

Treaty of Lausanne, Article 16:
Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

The Ottoman/Turkish Government, no matter which instrument of surrender you review, renounce all title over the territory and stipulated that the future of these territories would be determined by the Allied Powers (parties to the treaty). THUS, the Arabs had absolutely NO authority over the territory. Simply put --- it was not their "domain." By treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance and other lawful means, His Majesty has power and jurisdiction within Palestine (the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies).

His Majesty may, by a Commission under His Sign Manual and Signet, appoint a fit person to administer the Government of Palestine under the designation of High Commissioner and Commander-in-Chief or such other designation as His Majesty thinks fit, and the person so appointed is hereinafter referred to as the High Commissioner.
​

THUS: The Allied Powers agreed at the San Remo Conference (1920) that the Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration.

THEN, we can look at "unwelcome intrusion."

The Mandate and the High Commissioner, under the authority of the Allied Powers and the League Council,
facilitate Jewish immigration and the the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship.
​

THUS the duly appointed government over the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, described as Palestine invited and encouraged immigration --- not the "unwelcome invasion.".

(COMMENT)

I agree, this is quite the controversial topic. Assuming a benevolent government, one might agree that the Sovereignty rests with the people. But that is not always true --- no have it been true. It does occur from time to time, but it is not the dominant means of securing sovereignty.

My Thumbnail Approach: (See Chapter 8 --- Sovereignty)

Political sovereignty

• The supreme power is in politics. Political power exists when the people exercised their right to vote. Political sovereignty is the electoral plus all other methods and influence that shape public opinion.

Legal sovereignty

• This is sovereignty in terms of law – refers to that person or body of persons, who according to the law, have the power to give final commands, Any disobedience to the law is followed or result in punishment.

Popular sovereignty

• It refers to the power of the people or masses. Rousseau (the state and the people were one). The people’s power is important to balance the power of the ruler.

Egypt has a government and a sovereignty over its territory; there is no question of this. But it is a very different government than that of China; or the US, Canada, Germany, the UK, and Switzerland. Even North Korea has a government with a sovereign nature. The Russian Federation, just expanded its sovereignty when it annexed Crimea by force. Some would say, that is illegal. None the less, it is a reality. And if no one enforces Article 2(4) of the Charter, then is it really International Law or a guideline?

The bottom line here is about whatever works and affords stability. But they are not all the same.

Most Respectfully,
R

I agree, this is quite the controversial topic. Assuming a benevolent government, one might agree that the Sovereignty rests with the people.​

It seems that was the case.

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.

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).

Partition and the Law - 1948​

Nobody gave anything to anybody. When the successor states were released from Turkish rule, the people became the sovereigns in their respective territories.

(COMMENT)

I did not say that the Ottoman Empire gave the territory to the Allied Powers. The Empire surrender and relinquish control of the territory (not just once --- but three times) to the WWI Victors --- the Allied Powers.

Other than a "Pro-Palestinian" Propaganda Site, who else in 1919 believed that. In fact, you will be hard pressed to find any interpretation of Article 22 that guarantees anything to anyone. And while a few passages in IHL reference "self-determination" --- UDHR, the CCPR or the CESCR mention either sovereignty or successor governments. The Treaty of Lausanne speaks directly to the issue, and with the two legal precedents of previous treaties that specifically address the issue.

What is generally agreed upon is that, at some point, all the various Mandates will be self-governing. But the scope and nature is undefined. Like I said, the Palestinian Mandate is not the only Mandate that was partitioned. The Allied Powers wrote the Covenant and the Mandates. They understood their intent and they exercised that intent. The Covenant was not some stone tablets brought down from the Mountain for the Allied Powers to unconditionally observe.

PEEL REPORT:

We have not considered that our terms of reference required us to undertake the detailed and lengthy research among the documents of 20 years ago which would be needed for a full re-examination of this issue. We think it sufficient for the purposes of this Report to state that the British Government have never accepted the Arab case. When it was first formally presented by the Arab Delegation in London in 1922, the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Churchill) replied as follows: ”

That Ietter [Sir H. McMahon’s letter of the 24th October, ‘1915] is quoted as conveying the promise to the Sherif of Mecca to recognize and support the independence of the Arabs within the territories proposed by him. But this promise was given subject to a reservation made in the same letter, which excluded from its scope, among, other territories, the portions of Syria lying to the west of the district of Damascus. This reservation has always been regarded by His Majesty’s Government as covering the vilayet of Beirut and the independent Sanjak of Jerusalem. The whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sir H. McMahon’s pledge.”​

And you need to consider:

20. We must now consider what the Balfour Declaration meant. We have been permitted to examine the records which bear upon the question and it is clear to us that the words ” the establishment m Palestine of a National Home ” were the outcome of a compromise between those Ministers who contemplated the ultimate establishment of a Jewish State and those who did not. It is obvious in any case that His Majesty’s Government could not commit itself to the establishment of a Jewish State. It couId only undertake to facilitate the growth of a Home. It would depend mainly on the zeal and enterprise of the Jews whether the Home would grow big enough to become a State. Mr. Lloyd George, who was Prime Minister at the time, informed us in evidence that: - ”

The idea was, and this was the interpretation put upon it at the time, that a Jewish State was not to be set up immediately by the Peace Treaty without reference to the wishes of the majority of the inhabitants. On the other hand, it was contemplated that when the time arrived for according representative institutions to Palestine, if the Jews had meanwhile responded to the opportunity afforded them by the idea of a national home and had become a definite majority of the inhabitants, then PaIestine would thus become a Jewish Commonwealth. ’ ’
​

21. Thus His Majesty’s Government evidently realized that a Jewish State might in course of time be established, but it was not in a position to say that this would happen, still less to bring it about of its own motion. The Zionist leaders, for their part, recognized that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration, and so it was understood elsewhere. ” I am persuaded ’ ’ , said President Wilson on the 3rd March, 1919, ’ ‘ that the Allied nations, with the fullest concurrence of our own Government and people, are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundations of a Jewish Commonwealth “. Smuts, who had been a member of the Imperial War Cabinet when the Declaration was published, speaking at Johannesburg on the 3rd November, 1919, foretold an increasing stream of * Jewish immigration into Palestine and ” in generations to come a great Jewish State rising there once more “. Lord Robert Cecil in 1917, Sir Herbert Samuel in 1919, and Mr. Winston Churchill in 1920 spoke or wrote in terms that could only mean that they contemplated the eventual establishment of a Jewish State, Leading British newspapers were equally explicit in their comments on the Declaration.​

What is universally accepted (a very big concept) and was universally accept then, may be very much different. REMEMBER: The British Government have never accepted the Arab case.

Most Respectfully,
R

​

Britain was an old colonial power. They never recognized the rights of natives anywhere.

So it is no surprise that they blew off the rights of the Palestinians.

Violating people's rights do not negate those rights.

So are you saying the non native Muslim Palestinians have the rights to attack & kill the indigenous Jewiish Palestinians & claim it is their land/

No the indigenous Palestinian population (Muslim, Druze, Christian and Jewish), has the right to defend itself against the continued European Zionist colonisation of their land, by any means available to them.

When did this right come into force then, and it better be before 1917 when the land was war booty ?

 

[Indeependent]

The Muslim and Christian Palestinians are the native people of Palestine moron.

Oh now I get it. You see you Zionists, the Al Aqsa Mosque & Church of the Nativity came before Solomon's Temple. Amazing what we can learn here from Monte.

Well at least those two structures are tangible. There is absolutely no archaological evidence for the existence of Solomon's temple, none, nada, zip.

Solomon's Temple - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Read paragraph 3.

 

[Phoenall]

The Muslim and Christian Palestinians are the native people of Palestine moron.

Oh now I get it. You see you Zionists, the Al Aqsa Mosque & Church of the Nativity came before Solomon's Temple. Amazing what we can learn here from Monte.

Well at least those two structures are tangible. There is absolutely no archaological evidence for the existence of Solomon's temple, none, nada, zip.

So we cant see the Temple mount then with its ancient carvings from the Solomon era




Archaeological Evidence for Solomon's Temple!

A second stone inscription revealed within the last three months provides remarkable evidence for the reliability of the biblical texts.

Only a decade ago, skeptics were complaining that there was no archaeological evidence for the Judah Kings of the House of David (1008-586 BC) and the Jerusalem Temple of King David's son Jedidiah (better known as King Solomon). However, in 1993, a tablet was found with an inscription by King Hazael of Aram-Damascus in about 825 B.C., which indicated that his father, Hadad II, was victorious in battle against the "foot soldiers, charioteers and horsemen of the King of the House of David" (against Jehosaphat, c. 860 B.C.).

A second stone tablet, the "Moabite Stone," revealed in 1995, contains 36 lines of Phoenician script that recounts the rebellion of King Mesha of Moab against King Jehoram of Israel and King Jehosaphat of Judah (recorded in 2 Kings 3:5-27).1

The newly revealed sandstone tablet has a 15 line inscription in ancient Hebrew that is similar to the writings found in 2 Kings 12:1-6, 11-17.2 In the inscription, King Joash tells priests to take "holy money ... to buy quarry stones and timber and copper and labor to carry out the duty with faith."




King Solomon's Wall Found—Proof of Bible Tale?



Archaeologists Find Artifacts From Time Of Biblical King David And Solomon's Temple



So it all depends on which scientists you believe as to whether or not Solomon existed and built a temple.

 

[Rehmani]

Challenger, et al,

Well, we are a little bit closer. I think it is a mutual dissatisfaction on both sides.

Rehmani, et al,

This is something I don't understand.

Well I can see that how you are supporting the illegal invasion by jews.

(COMMENT)

Many pro-Palestinians make this remark that it was:

• An "invasion."
• It was "illegal."

I would like to know what definition you use for invasion?

I would like to know what law was broken that makes it illegal?

Most Respectfully,
R

Seems obvious to me.

"Invasion" = an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity;
an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure that "unwelcome intrusion" is the right term. BUT, clearly the Arab Palestinian did voice objections. A question --- and --- a point of contention is the is revolving around the valid of "another's domain."

Was the territory actually the "domain" of the Arab Palestinian? Or was the Arab Palestinian one fraction (sub-part) of the population that was a habitual resident? "

Who did the Ottoman Empire surrender to and relinquish control to in regards to the territory to which the Mandate was applied?

Armistice of Mudros: Article XVI
Surrender of all garrisons in Hedjaz, Assir, Yemen, Syria, and Mesopotamia to the nearest Allied Commander; and the withdrawal of troops from Cicilia, except those necessary to maintain order, as will be determined under Clause V.

Treaty of Sevres: Article 132
Outside her frontiers as fixed by the present Treaty Turkey hereby renounces in favour of the Principal Allied Powers all rights and title which she could claim on any ground over or concerning any territories outside Europe which are not otherwise disposed of by the present Treaty.

Turkey undertakes to recognise and conform to the measures which may be taken now or in the future by the Principal Allied Powers, in agreement where necessary with third Powers, in order to carry the above stipulation into effect.

Treaty of Lausanne, Article 16:
Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries.​

The Ottoman/Turkish Government, no matter which instrument of surrender you review, renounce all title over the territory and stipulated that the future of these territories would be determined by the Allied Powers (parties to the treaty). THUS, the Arabs had absolutely NO authority over the territory. Simply put --- it was not their "domain." By treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance and other lawful means, His Majesty has power and jurisdiction within Palestine (the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies).

His Majesty may, by a Commission under His Sign Manual and Signet, appoint a fit person to administer the Government of Palestine under the designation of High Commissioner and Commander-in-Chief or such other designation as His Majesty thinks fit, and the person so appointed is hereinafter referred to as the High Commissioner.
​

THUS: The Allied Powers agreed at the San Remo Conference (1920) that the Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration.

THEN, we can look at "unwelcome intrusion."

The Mandate and the High Commissioner, under the authority of the Allied Powers and the League Council,
facilitate Jewish immigration and the the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship.
​

THUS the duly appointed government over the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, described as Palestine invited and encouraged immigration --- not the "unwelcome invasion.".

Legality however, is more a grey area, and depends where one believes ultimate sovereignty to reside.

(COMMENT)

I agree, this is quite the controversial topic. Assuming a benevolent government, one might agree that the Sovereignty rests with the people. But that is not always true --- no have it been true. It does occur from time to time, but it is not the dominant means of securing sovereignty.

My Thumbnail Approach: (See Chapter 8 --- Sovereignty)

Political sovereignty

• The supreme power is in politics. Political power exists when the people exercised their right to vote. Political sovereignty is the electoral plus all other methods and influence that shape public opinion.

Legal sovereignty

• This is sovereignty in terms of law – refers to that person or body of persons, who according to the law, have the power to give final commands, Any disobedience to the law is followed or result in punishment.

Popular sovereignty

• It refers to the power of the people or masses. Rousseau (the state and the people were one). The people’s power is important to balance the power of the ruler.

Egypt has a government and a sovereignty over its territory; there is no question of this. But it is a very different government than that of China; or the US, Canada, Germany, the UK, and Switzerland. Even North Korea has a government with a sovereign nature. The Russian Federation, just expanded its sovereignty when it annexed Crimea by force. Some would say, that is illegal. None the less, it is a reality. And if no one enforces Article 2(4) of the Charter, then is it really International Law or a guideline?

The bottom line here is about whatever works and affords stability. But they are not all the same.

Most Respectfully,
R

I agree, this is quite the controversial topic. Assuming a benevolent government, one might agree that the Sovereignty rests with the people.​

It seems that was the case.

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.

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).

Partition and the Law - 1948​

Nobody gave anything to anybody. When the successor states were released from Turkish rule, the people became the sovereigns in their respective territories.

Correct and this meant that the Jews were the soveriegns of the Jewish section of Palestine. So why do you oppose this simple action yet defend and support the arab muslims taking land that was not theirs ?

Similarly why don't you understand too that roman kicked out jew from holly land and Arab muslim welcome back to jew during Ottoman Empire instead jew respect arab muslim they pushed them into camps and invade their land and home now you tell me that do you trust cheater who cheat you like jew are cheating to Arab msulim who accommodate jew in holy land.

 

[Rehmani]

Rehmani, et al,

This is something I don't understand.

Well I can see that how you are supporting the illegal invasion by jews.

(COMMENT)

Many pro-Palestinians make this remark that it was:

• An "invasion."
• It was "illegal."

I would like to know what definition you use for invasion?

I would like to know what law was broken that makes it illegal?

Most Respectfully,
R

1. The definition of invasion:

"Definition: An unarmed military campaign across national boundaries, with a comparatively long-range objective or duration, in restraint of flagrant injustice, oppression, invasion, or genocide."

2. An invasion of people, from a region to another region, who intend to remove the existing inhabitants of the other region through ethnic cleansing and/or genocide is a crime, hence illegal. Note: The Zionist and subsequently "Transfer Committee" headed by Yosef Weitz were clear on the goal of ethnic cleansing of the non-Jews.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Note: the link above does work.

Did you read your link Abdul, the part that says

The migration of the arabs of the land of Israel was not caused by persecution, violence, expulsion....(it was) a tactic of war on the part of the arabs.


So once again you shoot yourself in the foot and bring evidence that proves you wrong

Please agree with Montelatici and spread the peace.

 

[Rehmani]

Rehmani, et al,

This is something I don't understand.

Well I can see that how you are supporting the illegal invasion by jews.

(COMMENT)

Many pro-Palestinians make this remark that it was:

• An "invasion."
• It was "illegal."

I would like to know what definition you use for invasion?

I would like to know what law was broken that makes it illegal?

Most Respectfully,
R

Seems obvious to me.

"Invasion" = an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity;
an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.

Legality however, is more a grey area, and depends where one believes ultimate sovereignty to reside.

Sound just like the arab muslim invasion of Jewish Palestine then.

And now the muslim invasion of Europe that will be turned back as more and more nations are rising up against them

Sound like you are here just for the argument sack not for the peace as you already got answer in previous post.