Indigenous Palestinians Were JEWS

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Oh come-on now. This (bolded passage) was obstructed by the Hostile Arab Palestine in several cases.

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

“The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”
​

In practice it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development. From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.
​

The Treaty of Lausanne does not have any impact on the Covenant of the League of Nations, nor does it change any of its terms and conditions. One of these terms contained in Article 22 stated:

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."

Setting aside any question of sovereignty, how did the British insure "the well-being and development" of the people living in Palestine in 1919, 90% of which were Christians and Muslims, as required by the Covenant?

(COMMENT)

The Arabs made every effort to obstruct any progress of the Mandatory towards the fulfillment of the "sacred trust."

The London conference was attended on the one side by representatives of the Arabs of Palestine and of the governments of Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, on the other by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, which associated with its delegation a number of representatives of Jewish opinion outside the ranks of the Agency itself. Since the Arabs maintained their refusal to recognise the Jewish Agency, it was necessary to organise two separate conferences, one Anglo-Arab and the other Anglo-Jewish. The conversations lasted from the 7th February until the 15th march. The British Delegation presented proposals similar to those which were subsequently published in the White Paper of May, 1939. They were rejected by the Jews in principle; to the Arabs they represented an acceptable basis for discussion, but no agreement was reached.
​

It was probably a very good thing that the Arabs did thrort progress

The statement of policy next dealt with the subject of Jewish immigration:-

“In the view of the Royal commission, the association of the policy of the Balfour Declaration with the Mandate system implied the belief that Arab hostility to the former would sooner or later be overcome. It has been the hope of British governments ever since the Balfour Declaration was issued that in time the Arab population, recognising the advantages to be derived form Jewish settlement and development in Palestine, would become reconciled to the further growth of the Jewish National Home. This hope has not been fulfilled. The alternatives before His Majesty’s Government are either (i) to seek to expand the Jewish National Home indefinitely by immigration, against the strongly expressed will of the Arab people of the country; or (ii) to permit further expansion of the Jewish National Home by immigration only if the Arabs are prepared to acquiesce in it. The former policy means rule by force. apart from other considerations, such a policy seems to His Majesty’s government to be contrary to the whole spirit of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, as well as to their specific obligations to the Arabs in the Palestine Mandate. Moreover, the relations between the Arabs and the Jews in Palestine must be based sooner or later on mutual tolerance and goodwill; the peace, security and progress of the Jewish National Home itself require this. Therefore His Majesty’s government, after earnest consideration, and taking into account the extent to which the growth of the Jewish national Home has been facilitated over the last twenty years, have decided that the time has come to adopt in principle the second of the alternatives referred to above.”

It was accordingly provided that, after the admission of not more than 75,000 additional immigrants during the five years beginning in April, 1939, “no further Jewish immigration will be permitted unless the Arabs of Palestine are prepared to acquiesce in it.”​

As it turns out, the establishment of a Jewish National Home under the umbrella of Arab Sovereignty, would have met with dire consequences. The Arab of Palestine sided with the Axis Powers (Germany). The Arab Palestinians might have sold out the entire national home.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Challenger]

Challenger, et al,

I have said something along these lines many times. You guys just don't get it. Your blinded by selfish political needs.

San Remo was a blatant carve up along 19th century colonial imperialist lines and in direct contravention of the wishes of indigenous peoples; something the LoN was supposed to protect.

(COMMENT)

Sometimes you have to appreciate the emotions and thoughts of the early 1900's. The public opinion and political considerations in Britain and America had exhibited great sympathy before the War and the developing anti-Semitic persecution. These sympathies were translated into action were determined by the exigencies of the War.

Millions of tons of British: shipping had been sunk by German submarines. No American divisions were yet available in the trenches. In this critical situation it was believed that Jewish sympathy or the reverse would make a substantial difference one way or the other to the Allied cause. In particular Jewish sympathy would confirm the support of American Jewry, and would make it more difficult for Germany to reduce her military commitments and improve her economic position on the eastern front. 16. Those were the circumstances in which the British Government issued the Balfour Declaration.

” The Zionist leaders [Mr. Lloyd George informed us] gave us a definite promise that, if the Allies committed themselves to giving facilities for the establishment of a national home for the Jews in Palestine, they would do their best to rally Jewish sentiment and support throughout the world to the Allied cause. They kept their word.”
​

17, To inform World Jewry of the Declaration millions of leaflets were circulated throughout the Jewish communities. They were dropped from the air on German and Austrian towns, and widely distributed through the Jewish belt from Poland to the Black Sea.

18. The Central Powers, meantime, had also recognized the war-value of Jewish sympathy, At the time of the Balfour Declaration the German Government was doing all it could to win the Zionist Movement over to its side; and after the Declaration it hastened, in conjunction with its Turkish allies, to formulate a rival proposition. A kind of chartered company was to be created for German Zionists. It would have a limited form of local self-government and a right of immigration into Palestine. By the end of rgI7 it was known that the Turks were willing to accept a scheme on those lines; but, before the concessions were finally confirmed in Constantinople, Palestine was in General Allenby’s hands.​

Understanding that:

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 ufs 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.
​

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, recogmsed 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 .“​

I understand the intent of the Allied Powers very well; and do not attempt to polarize the reality of the time with the agenda of today's Palestinian claims.

Most Respectfully,
R

...You guys just don't get it. Your blinded by selfish political needs.

Dear teapot, love kettle. Such accusations don't further the discussion in any way. Official reports, couched in flowery language, like the Peel commission which you quote are but one indicator of what was going on in the minds of the British government, but not the be all and end all.

 

[Challenger]

The Arab of Palestine sided with the Axis Powers (Germany).

Prove it.

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

Oh come-on now. This (bolded passage) was obstructed by the Hostile Arab Palestine in several cases.

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

“The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”
​

In practice it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development. From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.​

The Treaty of Lausanne does not have any impact on the Covenant of the League of Nations, nor does it change any of its terms and conditions. One of these terms contained in Article 22 stated:

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."

Setting aside any question of sovereignty, how did the British insure "the well-being and development" of the people living in Palestine in 1919, 90% of which were Christians and Muslims, as required by the Covenant?

(COMMENT)

The Arabs made every effort to obstruct any progress of the Mandatory towards the fulfillment of the "sacred trust."

The London conference was attended on the one side by representatives of the Arabs of Palestine and of the governments of Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, on the other by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, which associated with its delegation a number of representatives of Jewish opinion outside the ranks of the Agency itself. Since the Arabs maintained their refusal to recognise the Jewish Agency, it was necessary to organise two separate conferences, one Anglo-Arab and the other Anglo-Jewish. The conversations lasted from the 7th February until the 15th march. The British Delegation presented proposals similar to those which were subsequently published in the White Paper of May, 1939. They were rejected by the Jews in principle; to the Arabs they represented an acceptable basis for discussion, but no agreement was reached.
​

It was probably a very good thing that the Arabs did thrort progress

The statement of policy next dealt with the subject of Jewish immigration:-

“In the view of the Royal commission, the association of the policy of the Balfour Declaration with the Mandate system implied the belief that Arab hostility to the former would sooner or later be overcome. It has been the hope of British governments ever since the Balfour Declaration was issued that in time the Arab population, recognising the advantages to be derived form Jewish settlement and development in Palestine, would become reconciled to the further growth of the Jewish National Home. This hope has not been fulfilled. The alternatives before His Majesty’s Government are either (i) to seek to expand the Jewish National Home indefinitely by immigration, against the strongly expressed will of the Arab people of the country; or (ii) to permit further expansion of the Jewish National Home by immigration only if the Arabs are prepared to acquiesce in it. The former policy means rule by force. apart from other considerations, such a policy seems to His Majesty’s government to be contrary to the whole spirit of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, as well as to their specific obligations to the Arabs in the Palestine Mandate. Moreover, the relations between the Arabs and the Jews in Palestine must be based sooner or later on mutual tolerance and goodwill; the peace, security and progress of the Jewish National Home itself require this. Therefore His Majesty’s government, after earnest consideration, and taking into account the extent to which the growth of the Jewish national Home has been facilitated over the last twenty years, have decided that the time has come to adopt in principle the second of the alternatives referred to above.”

It was accordingly provided that, after the admission of not more than 75,000 additional immigrants during the five years beginning in April, 1939, “no further Jewish immigration will be permitted unless the Arabs of Palestine are prepared to acquiesce in it.”​

As it turns out, the establishment of a Jewish National Home under the umbrella of Arab Sovereignty, would have met with dire consequences. The Arab of Palestine sided with the Axis Powers (Germany). The Arab Palestinians might have sold out the entire national home.

Most Respectfully,
R

How does any of the above change the fact that the European Jews invaded and colonized Palestine facilitated by the British against the wishes of the resident Christians and Muslims of Palestine.

The Native Americans were at least as uncooperative with the invading Europeans as the Christians and Muslims of Palestine were towards the invading Europeans. Did that make the dispossession of the Native Americans any more justified?

Somehow you believe that the Christians and Muslims should have assisted in their own dispossession. That is nonsense.

By the way cutting and pasting volumes non-germane does not help your argument.

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

Oh come-on now. This (bolded passage) was obstructed by the Hostile Arab Palestine in several cases.

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

“The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”
​

In practice it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development. From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.​

The Treaty of Lausanne does not have any impact on the Covenant of the League of Nations, nor does it change any of its terms and conditions. One of these terms contained in Article 22 stated:

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."

Setting aside any question of sovereignty, how did the British insure "the well-being and development" of the people living in Palestine in 1919, 90% of which were Christians and Muslims, as required by the Covenant?

(COMMENT)

The Arabs made every effort to obstruct any progress of the Mandatory towards the fulfillment of the "sacred trust."

The London conference was attended on the one side by representatives of the Arabs of Palestine and of the governments of Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, on the other by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, which associated with its delegation a number of representatives of Jewish opinion outside the ranks of the Agency itself. Since the Arabs maintained their refusal to recognise the Jewish Agency, it was necessary to organise two separate conferences, one Anglo-Arab and the other Anglo-Jewish. The conversations lasted from the 7th February until the 15th march. The British Delegation presented proposals similar to those which were subsequently published in the White Paper of May, 1939. They were rejected by the Jews in principle; to the Arabs they represented an acceptable basis for discussion, but no agreement was reached.
​

It was probably a very good thing that the Arabs did thrort progress

The statement of policy next dealt with the subject of Jewish immigration:-

“In the view of the Royal commission, the association of the policy of the Balfour Declaration with the Mandate system implied the belief that Arab hostility to the former would sooner or later be overcome. It has been the hope of British governments ever since the Balfour Declaration was issued that in time the Arab population, recognising the advantages to be derived form Jewish settlement and development in Palestine, would become reconciled to the further growth of the Jewish National Home. This hope has not been fulfilled. The alternatives before His Majesty’s Government are either (i) to seek to expand the Jewish National Home indefinitely by immigration, against the strongly expressed will of the Arab people of the country; or (ii) to permit further expansion of the Jewish National Home by immigration only if the Arabs are prepared to acquiesce in it. The former policy means rule by force. apart from other considerations, such a policy seems to His Majesty’s government to be contrary to the whole spirit of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, as well as to their specific obligations to the Arabs in the Palestine Mandate. Moreover, the relations between the Arabs and the Jews in Palestine must be based sooner or later on mutual tolerance and goodwill; the peace, security and progress of the Jewish National Home itself require this. Therefore His Majesty’s government, after earnest consideration, and taking into account the extent to which the growth of the Jewish national Home has been facilitated over the last twenty years, have decided that the time has come to adopt in principle the second of the alternatives referred to above.”

It was accordingly provided that, after the admission of not more than 75,000 additional immigrants during the five years beginning in April, 1939, “no further Jewish immigration will be permitted unless the Arabs of Palestine are prepared to acquiesce in it.”​

As it turns out, the establishment of a Jewish National Home under the umbrella of Arab Sovereignty, would have met with dire consequences. The Arab of Palestine sided with the Axis Powers (Germany). The Arab Palestinians might have sold out the entire national home.

Most Respectfully,
R

"The Arab of Palestine sided with the Axis Powers (Germany). "

You are worse than Netanyahu with your invented history. The Palestinian Christians and Muslims did not "side" with the Axis Powers you nitwit. If anything they supported the Arab rebellion against the Turks in support of the Allies.

 

[Challenger]

Do you not understand the consequences of the surrender?

The Arabs didn't surrender, they were part of the victorious allies and they helped liberate the lands that became Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Jordan, by European fiat and against the wishes of the native population.

 

[Phoenall]

Challenger, et al,

I have said something along these lines many times. You guys just don't get it. Your blinded by selfish political needs.

San Remo was a blatant carve up along 19th century colonial imperialist lines and in direct contravention of the wishes of indigenous peoples; something the LoN was supposed to protect.

(COMMENT)

Sometimes you have to appreciate the emotions and thoughts of the early 1900's. The public opinion and political considerations in Britain and America had exhibited great sympathy before the War and the developing anti-Semitic persecution. These sympathies were translated into action were determined by the exigencies of the War.

Millions of tons of British: shipping had been sunk by German submarines. No American divisions were yet available in the trenches. In this critical situation it was believed that Jewish sympathy or the reverse would make a substantial difference one way or the other to the Allied cause. In particular Jewish sympathy would confirm the support of American Jewry, and would make it more difficult for Germany to reduce her military commitments and improve her economic position on the eastern front. 16. Those were the circumstances in which the British Government issued the Balfour Declaration.

” The Zionist leaders [Mr. Lloyd George informed us] gave us a definite promise that, if the Allies committed themselves to giving facilities for the establishment of a national home for the Jews in Palestine, they would do their best to rally Jewish sentiment and support throughout the world to the Allied cause. They kept their word.”
​

17, To inform World Jewry of the Declaration millions of leaflets were circulated throughout the Jewish communities. They were dropped from the air on German and Austrian towns, and widely distributed through the Jewish belt from Poland to the Black Sea.

18. The Central Powers, meantime, had also recognized the war-value of Jewish sympathy, At the time of the Balfour Declaration the German Government was doing all it could to win the Zionist Movement over to its side; and after the Declaration it hastened, in conjunction with its Turkish allies, to formulate a rival proposition. A kind of chartered company was to be created for German Zionists. It would have a limited form of local self-government and a right of immigration into Palestine. By the end of rgI7 it was known that the Turks were willing to accept a scheme on those lines; but, before the concessions were finally confirmed in Constantinople, Palestine was in General Allenby’s hands.​

Understanding that:

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 ufs 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.
​

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, recogmsed 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 .“​

I understand the intent of the Allied Powers very well; and do not attempt to polarize the reality of the time with the agenda of today's Palestinian claims.

Most Respectfully,
R

...You guys just don't get it. Your blinded by selfish political needs.

Dear teapot, love kettle. Such accusations don't further the discussion in any way. Official reports, couched in flowery language, like the Peel commission which you quote are but one indicator of what was going on in the minds of the British government, but not the be all and end all.

Tough as the laws at the time were on the side of the LoN and they decided what was what. They tried to do the decent thing and involve all parties in the working parties and the arab muslims refused point blank to have anything to do with the mandate or the running of Palestine. This meant that they were left out and had no further say in what was to happen. They resorted to their usual violence and terrorism to try and force the issue and were soundly thrashed. The Palestinians are their own worst enemies and only have themselves to blame. They could have had a fully functioning nation that would be the envy of the M.E. and instead they have a derelict nation with no hope for the future.

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

Oh come-on now. This (bolded passage) was obstructed by the Hostile Arab Palestine in several cases.

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

“The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”
​

In practice it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development. From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.​

The Treaty of Lausanne does not have any impact on the Covenant of the League of Nations, nor does it change any of its terms and conditions. One of these terms contained in Article 22 stated:

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."

Setting aside any question of sovereignty, how did the British insure "the well-being and development" of the people living in Palestine in 1919, 90% of which were Christians and Muslims, as required by the Covenant?

(COMMENT)

The Arabs made every effort to obstruct any progress of the Mandatory towards the fulfillment of the "sacred trust."

The London conference was attended on the one side by representatives of the Arabs of Palestine and of the governments of Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, on the other by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, which associated with its delegation a number of representatives of Jewish opinion outside the ranks of the Agency itself. Since the Arabs maintained their refusal to recognise the Jewish Agency, it was necessary to organise two separate conferences, one Anglo-Arab and the other Anglo-Jewish. The conversations lasted from the 7th February until the 15th march. The British Delegation presented proposals similar to those which were subsequently published in the White Paper of May, 1939. They were rejected by the Jews in principle; to the Arabs they represented an acceptable basis for discussion, but no agreement was reached.
​

It was probably a very good thing that the Arabs did thrort progress

The statement of policy next dealt with the subject of Jewish immigration:-

“In the view of the Royal commission, the association of the policy of the Balfour Declaration with the Mandate system implied the belief that Arab hostility to the former would sooner or later be overcome. It has been the hope of British governments ever since the Balfour Declaration was issued that in time the Arab population, recognising the advantages to be derived form Jewish settlement and development in Palestine, would become reconciled to the further growth of the Jewish National Home. This hope has not been fulfilled. The alternatives before His Majesty’s Government are either (i) to seek to expand the Jewish National Home indefinitely by immigration, against the strongly expressed will of the Arab people of the country; or (ii) to permit further expansion of the Jewish National Home by immigration only if the Arabs are prepared to acquiesce in it. The former policy means rule by force. apart from other considerations, such a policy seems to His Majesty’s government to be contrary to the whole spirit of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, as well as to their specific obligations to the Arabs in the Palestine Mandate. Moreover, the relations between the Arabs and the Jews in Palestine must be based sooner or later on mutual tolerance and goodwill; the peace, security and progress of the Jewish National Home itself require this. Therefore His Majesty’s government, after earnest consideration, and taking into account the extent to which the growth of the Jewish national Home has been facilitated over the last twenty years, have decided that the time has come to adopt in principle the second of the alternatives referred to above.”

It was accordingly provided that, after the admission of not more than 75,000 additional immigrants during the five years beginning in April, 1939, “no further Jewish immigration will be permitted unless the Arabs of Palestine are prepared to acquiesce in it.”​

As it turns out, the establishment of a Jewish National Home under the umbrella of Arab Sovereignty, would have met with dire consequences. The Arab of Palestine sided with the Axis Powers (Germany). The Arab Palestinians might have sold out the entire national home.

Most Respectfully,
R

How does any of the above change the fact that the European Jews invaded and colonized Palestine facilitated by the British against the wishes of the resident Christians and Muslims of Palestine.

The Native Americans were at least as uncooperative with the invading Europeans as the Christians and Muslims of Palestine were towards the invading Europeans. Did that make the dispossession of the Native Americans any more justified?

Somehow you believe that the Christians and Muslims should have assisted in their own dispossession. That is nonsense.

By the way cutting and pasting volumes non-germane does not help your argument.

THEY DID NOT INVADE BECAUSE THE LAWS WERE DIFFERNTY THEN, AND THE LANDS OWNERS INVITED THEM TO MIGRATE

Did the lands owners invite you Catholics to invade their country

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

Oh come-on now. This (bolded passage) was obstructed by the Hostile Arab Palestine in several cases.

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

“The British Government desired to establish a self-government in Palestine, but to proceed in this direction by stages…. It had been announced that the nominated Advisory Council was to be the first stage. The second stage would have been a Legislative Council without an Arab majority. If this worked satisfactorily, the third stage, after a lapse of perhaps same years, would have been a constitution on more democratic lines.”
​

In practice it proved impossible even to initiate this policy of gradual constitutional development. From 1922 until the present day, the High Commissioner has governed Palestine with the aid of Councils consisting exclusively of British officials.​

The Treaty of Lausanne does not have any impact on the Covenant of the League of Nations, nor does it change any of its terms and conditions. One of these terms contained in Article 22 stated:

"ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."

Setting aside any question of sovereignty, how did the British insure "the well-being and development" of the people living in Palestine in 1919, 90% of which were Christians and Muslims, as required by the Covenant?

(COMMENT)

The Arabs made every effort to obstruct any progress of the Mandatory towards the fulfillment of the "sacred trust."

The London conference was attended on the one side by representatives of the Arabs of Palestine and of the governments of Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, on the other by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, which associated with its delegation a number of representatives of Jewish opinion outside the ranks of the Agency itself. Since the Arabs maintained their refusal to recognise the Jewish Agency, it was necessary to organise two separate conferences, one Anglo-Arab and the other Anglo-Jewish. The conversations lasted from the 7th February until the 15th march. The British Delegation presented proposals similar to those which were subsequently published in the White Paper of May, 1939. They were rejected by the Jews in principle; to the Arabs they represented an acceptable basis for discussion, but no agreement was reached.
​

It was probably a very good thing that the Arabs did thrort progress

The statement of policy next dealt with the subject of Jewish immigration:-

“In the view of the Royal commission, the association of the policy of the Balfour Declaration with the Mandate system implied the belief that Arab hostility to the former would sooner or later be overcome. It has been the hope of British governments ever since the Balfour Declaration was issued that in time the Arab population, recognising the advantages to be derived form Jewish settlement and development in Palestine, would become reconciled to the further growth of the Jewish National Home. This hope has not been fulfilled. The alternatives before His Majesty’s Government are either (i) to seek to expand the Jewish National Home indefinitely by immigration, against the strongly expressed will of the Arab people of the country; or (ii) to permit further expansion of the Jewish National Home by immigration only if the Arabs are prepared to acquiesce in it. The former policy means rule by force. apart from other considerations, such a policy seems to His Majesty’s government to be contrary to the whole spirit of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, as well as to their specific obligations to the Arabs in the Palestine Mandate. Moreover, the relations between the Arabs and the Jews in Palestine must be based sooner or later on mutual tolerance and goodwill; the peace, security and progress of the Jewish National Home itself require this. Therefore His Majesty’s government, after earnest consideration, and taking into account the extent to which the growth of the Jewish national Home has been facilitated over the last twenty years, have decided that the time has come to adopt in principle the second of the alternatives referred to above.”

It was accordingly provided that, after the admission of not more than 75,000 additional immigrants during the five years beginning in April, 1939, “no further Jewish immigration will be permitted unless the Arabs of Palestine are prepared to acquiesce in it.”​

As it turns out, the establishment of a Jewish National Home under the umbrella of Arab Sovereignty, would have met with dire consequences. The Arab of Palestine sided with the Axis Powers (Germany). The Arab Palestinians might have sold out the entire national home.

Most Respectfully,
R

"The Arab of Palestine sided with the Axis Powers (Germany). "

You are worse than Netanyahu with your invented history. The Palestinian Christians and Muslims did not "side" with the Axis Powers you nitwit. If anything they supported the Arab rebellion against the Turks in support of the Allies.

They did as the Mufti told them and they sided with the axis powers




Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Palestinian Arab and Nazi political leaders said that they had a common cause against International Jewry. The most significant practical effect of Nazi policy on Palestine between 1933 and 1938, however, was to radically increase the immigration rate of German and other European Jews and to double the population of Palestinian Jews. The Mufti had sent messages to Berlin through Heinrich Wolf, the German Consul in Jerusalem endorsing the advent of the new regime as early as March, 1933, and was enthusiastic over the Nazi anti-Jewish policy, and particularly the anti-Jewish boycott in Germany. “[The Mufti and other sheikhs asked] only that German Jews not be sent to Palestine

One consequence of the Mufti's opposition to England's role as the Mandatory power in Palestine and his rejection of the British attempts to work out a compromise between Zionists and Palestinian Arabs was that the Mufti was forced to flee Palestine. Many of his followers, who had fought Jews and the English in Palestine, followed him and continued to work for his political goals. Among the most notable Palestinian soldiers in this category was Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni, a kinsman and officer of the Mufti who had been wounded twice in the early stages of the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine. The Mufti sent Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni to Germany in 1938 for explosives training. Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni then worked with the Mufti to support the Golden Square regime, and consequently was sentenced to prison by the British after they retook Iraq. He subsequently became the popular leader of approximately 50,000 Palestinian Arabs who joined the Mufti's Army of the Holy War during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. His fellow Iraq-veteran and German collaborator Fawzi al-Qawuqji became a rival general in that same struggle against Zionism.[45]

 

[Phoenall]

Do you not understand the consequences of the surrender?

The Arabs didn't surrender, they were part of the victorious allies and they helped liberate the lands that became Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Jordan, by European fiat and against the wishes of the native population.

Not all, just some and they did not include the Palestinian muslims who went along with the Mufti's commands to fight with the Germans.

 

[MJB12741]

Just curious, who's taht guy with Hitler? Is it a Zionist?

http://blog.thecovertletter.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Mufti-and-Hitler.jpg

 

[MJB12741]

Just curious, who's taht guy with Hitler? Is it a Zionist?

http://blog.thecovertletter.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Mufti-and-Hitler.jpg

And then there are those who actually said the Jews & Muslims got along just fine in the holy land prior to 1948. It's called Palestinian mentality.

http://blog.thecovertletter.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Mufti-and-Hitler.jpg

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, Challenger, et al,

I think you are a bit confused. (While I'm not beyond making mistakes --- I don't think I'm a silly or foolish person.)

"The Arab of Palestine sided with the Axis Powers (Germany). "

You are worse than Netanyahu with your invented history. The Palestinian Christians and Muslims did not "side" with the Axis Powers you nitwit. If anything they supported the Arab rebellion against the Turks in support of the Allies.

(COMMENT)

Two different wars.

• The Arab (Prince Faisal of the Hejaz -- not the Arab of Palestine) and the alliance against the Turks was WWI. Sherif Hussein bin Ali (Father of Prince Faisal --- and --- Emir / Grand Sharif of Mecca) helped organize the Arabs of the Hejaz in securing independence from the ruling Ottoman Turks.
• Hajj Amin al-Husseini, before he found Allah (The Most Merciful - PBUH) served as an Company Grade Officer (Captain Artillery Officer 47th Brigade) in the Ottoman Army during WWI against the Allied Powers.
• Ahmed Hilmi Pasha, before he tried to be the first Prime Minister of the All Palestine Government, was a General in the Ottoman Army

-------------------------------------------------------------------------​

• The Axis Powers and Germany refers to WWII.
• Our friend "Phoenall" has already mentioned the collusion and collaborations of the Grand Mufti with the German Axis Power; against the Allied Powers.
• Hasan Salama, before he became the Commander of the Palestinian Holy War Army in 1948, was a member of a Special Commando Unit of the Waffen SS, as a paratrooper.
• Fawzi al-Qawuqji, before he became the Field Commander during the 1948 Palestine War Arab Liberation Army (ALA), was a Colonel of the Wehrmacht.

But, in the end, your confusion --- it makes no difference. The reason the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration - South (OETA-S) was established in Jerusalem, Nablus and Acre, is because it was enemy territory (not liberated territory).

The Arabs didn't surrender, they were part of the victorious allies and they helped liberate the lands that became Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Jordan, by European fiat and against the wishes of the native population.

(COMMENT)

You are again confused. The Arab Revolt (June 1916) was a brain child from the Emir of Mecca. Mecca is in the Hejaz. The tribes involved were mostly the irregular calvary (6000 to 7000 in strength) organized by the legendary COL T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia).

​

By the way cutting and pasting volumes non-germane does not help your argument.

(COMMENT)

All the information I presented was important to the issues under discussion. Whether is be the interpretation of the Mandatory, the understanding of the Arab Palestinian, or the general intent of the treaties and concepts, it was all relevant to the understand and the background that lead to the decision.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

What does WW2 have to do with events and treaties that were signed well before WW2. How could Jerusalem be "occupied enemy territory" during WW2? What "enemy" held Jerusalem before and during WW2?

Talk about confusion.

 

[Humanity]

I am your worst nightmare as I have researched islam and the koran and know what your plans are

REALLY?

So which zionut research document did you read on Islam?

You are clueless Phoney...

Do prove us wrong and tell us where you have researched Islam and the koran...

I fear that you have read the zionut websites, been fed misinformation from other zionut websites and zionut blogs....

But I look forward to hearing you research sources...

 

[Humanity]

I bet you would not dare say that to my face either being a coward, unless you had 10 heavily armed other muslims to back you up.

Hahaha...

I say it to your face Phoney, you and me babe, how about it? ;-)

I look forward to that!

Not been to flat capped, whipped breeding country for a long time....

 

[Humanity]

Just curious, who's taht guy with Hitler? Is it a Zionist?

http://blog.thecovertletter.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Mufti-and-Hitler.jpg

What? Is it Netanyahu?

Bum chums together!

 

[MJB12741]

Just curious, who's taht guy with Hitler? Is it a Zionist?

http://blog.thecovertletter.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Mufti-and-Hitler.jpg

What? Is it Netanyahu?

Bum chums together!

Nope, not Netanyahu. But don't feel bad. Try again. 'Atta boy.


http://blog.thecovertletter.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Mufti-and-Hitler.jpg

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

I was trying to clarify some points.

What does WW2 have to do with events and treaties that were signed well before WW2. How could Jerusalem be "occupied enemy territory" during WW2? What "enemy" held Jerusalem before and during WW2?

Talk about confusion.

(COMMENT)

I did not say that the OETA-S was WWII. The OETA-S was between 1918 (the surrender Armistice of Mudros) and 1920 (before the Civil Administration). My assumptions was that you already understood this, since it was all mentioned before. The OETA-S was instituted because it was enemy territory.

If you go back to the Posting #545, you will notice that YOU made the statement that: "The Palestinian Christians and Muslims did not "side" with the Axis Powers you nitwit." In fact this statement was wrong on two counts. My first comment was to address this confusion inject by you.

Further, YOU stated that: "If anything they supported the Arab rebellion against the Turks in support of the Allies." It is a matter of fact that the Arab Rebellion was between 1936 and 1939 (WWII Stated in 1939). It was not a rebellion against the Turks (having been defeated 18 years prior). I assumed you meant "The Arab Revolt" (1916–1918) which had nothing to do with Palestinians. The Emir and Grand Sharif of Mecca (Sherif Hussein bin Ali) King of the Hejaz, organized the Arab Revolt to gain Kingdoms for his surviving sons and independence from the Ottoman Turks. At that point in time, as mentioned in Posting #535, Palestinians were not operating on the side of the Allied Powers. It was quite the opposite.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

You are conflating WW 1 and WW 2. Make up your mind. In any case:

1. The Christians and Muslims of Palestine during before and during WW 1 were more likely to support the Allies who were fighting against the Turks from whom they wanted independence.

"On the eve of World War I, the anticipated break-up of the enfeebled Ottoman Empire raised hopes among both Zionists and Arab nationalists. The Zionists hoped to attain support from one of the Great Powers for increased Jewish immigrationand eventual sovereignty in Palestine, whereas the Arab nationalists wanted an independent Arab state covering all the Ottoman Arab domains. From a purely demographic standpoint, the Zionist argument was not very strong — in 1914 they comprised only 12 percent of the total population of Palestine. The nationalist ideal, however, was weak among the Arabs, and even among articulate Arabs competing visions of Arab nationalism — Islamic, pan-Arab, and statism — inhibited coordinated efforts to achieve independence."

Palestine During World War I | Jewish Virtual Library

2. The Arab rebellion before WW 2 was a rebellion against the colonial power, Great Britain that was intent on establishing a European colony in Palestine by resettling Europeans there and facilitating the eviction of the Muslims and Christians. Of course they would rebel against the British.