Israel Wants Peace

[Phoenall]

The land was 95% Christian and Jewish in 1943. It was stolen by the Jews in 1948.

WRONG the land went from being 100% Ottoman to 100% LoN and then to 100% Jewish. The arab muslims and Christinas had not held sovereignty since 1099.

Not true.

On the basis of this legal concept, national Palestinian sovereignty was not annulled when Britain was entrusted by the League of Nations with the mandate over Palestine.[6] Furthermore, the mandate over Palestine – as the mandates over Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan – fell into category (A) according to the classification of the League of Nations. This category, in distinction from the categories (B) and (C), implied the expectation of early independence.[7] Henry Cattan rightly concludes: “The legal effect under international law of the detachment of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire and of recognition of its people as an independent nation was to make of this country a separate and independent state.”[8] All the legal assumptions relating to the international status of Palestine were based on the principle according to which sovereignty over a mandated territory lies in its inhabitants.[9] This legal notion has also been confirmed in a United Nations report on the origins of the Palestine problem where it is stated that the sovereignty of Palestine (having been classified as falling under a category “A” Mandate) “could not be alienated either by the Mandatory Power or by the League.”[10]
http://i-p-o.org/palestine-sovereignty.htm ​

The Palestinian's right to independence and sovereignty has been stressed in subsequent UN resolutions.

Wrong as this OFFICIAL report states

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922


2. I am to point out in the first place that, while your Delegation is recognised by Mr. Churchill as representing a large section of the Moslem and Christian inhabitants of Palestine, and while the Secretary of State is anxious to discuss his present proposals informally with recognised representatives, such as yourselves, of any important section of the community, he is not in a position to negotiate officially with you or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine, since no official machinery for representation has as yet been constituted. It is with the object of providing the people of Palestine with a constitutional channel for the expression of their opinions and wishes that the draft constitution has been framed.

3. Mr. Churchill regrets to observe that his personal explanations have apparently failed to convince your Delegation that His Majesty's Government have no intention "of repudiating the obligations into which they have entered towards the Jewish people. He has informed you on more than one occasion that he cannot discuss the future of Palestine upon any other basis than that of the letter addressed by the Right Honourable A. J. Balfour to Lord Rothschild on the 2nd November, 1917, commonly known as the "Balfour Declaration." You state in your letter that the people of Palestine cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion. Mr. Churchill is unable for the reasons stated above to regard your Delegation as officially representing the People of Palestine. He presumes that your statement is not in any case intended to apply to the existing Jewish population of Palestine, which, so far as he is aware, your Delegation makes no claim to represent.
4. With regard to Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, I am to observe that this Article, in so far as it applies to territories severed from the Ottoman Empire, has been interpreted by the Principal Allied Powers in Articles 94 to 97 of the Treaty of Sevres, Syria and Iraq are explicitly referred to in Article 94 of that Treaty as having been provisionally recognised as Independent States, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Article 95, on the other hand, makes no such reference to Palestine. The reason for this is that, as stated in that Article, the Mandatory is to be responsible for putting into effect the Declaration originally made on the 2nd November, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. There is no question of treating the people of Palestine as less advanced than their neighbours in Iraq and Syria; the position is that His Majesty's Government are bound by a pledge which is antecedent to the Covenant of the League of Nations, and they cannot allow a constitutional position to develop in a country for which they have accepted responsibility to the Principal Allied Powers, which may make it impracticable to carry into effect a solemn undertaking given by themselves and their Allies.

5. For this reason Mr. Churchill is unable to accede to the second of the six requests made by your Delegation at the close of your letter under reply. If your Delegation really represents the present attitude of the majority of the Arab population of Palestine, and Mr. Churchill has no grounds for suggesting that this is not the case, it is quite clear that the creation at this stage of a national Government would preclude the fulfilment of the pledge made by the British Government to the Jewish people. It follows that the Principal Allied Powers, concerned as they were to ensure the fulfilment of a policy adopted before the Covenant was drafted, were well advised in applying to Palestine a somewhat different interpretation of paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant than was applied to the neighbouring countries of Iraq and Syria. His Majesty's Government are ready and willing to grant to the people of Palestine the greatest measure of independence consistent with the fulfilment of the pledges referred to. They readily endorse the five remaining requests made at the close of your letter, and it is in the hope of ensuring their realisation that the Secretary of State has invited your Delegation to discuss with him and with members of his department the practical steps which shall be taken to attain these objects.

6. The references in your letter under reply to "a great immigration of alien Jews," "a flood of alien immigration," and "a flood of alien Jewish immigration," coupled with the request that the British Government should "put a stop to all alien immigration," and the reference to the Zionist Organisation in Clause 2 of paragraph (d) of your letter, indicate that your Delegation and the community which they represent, imperfectly apprehend the interpretation placed by His Majesty's Government upon the policy of the National Home for the Jewish people. This interpretation was publicly given in Palestine on the 3rd June, 1921, by the High Commissioner in the following words :—

• 
  
  " These words (National Home) mean that the Jews, who are a people scattered throughout the world, but whose hearts are always turned to Palestine should be enabled to found here their home, and that some amongst them, within the limits fixed by numbers and the interests of the present population, should come to Palestine in order to help by their resources and efforts to develop the country to the advantage of all its inhabitants."

This interpretation was endorsed by the Secretary of State in his speech to the House of Commons on the 14th June, 1921. Mr. Churchill is reluctant to believe that your Delegation, or the people whom they represent, can entertain any objection in principle to the policy as thus interpreted.
7. Mr. Churchill has derived the impression from his interviews with your Delegation that it is not so much the policy itself, as defined in the preceding paragraph, that arouses misgiving, as the unfounded apprehension that the policy will not in practice follow the lines indicated. However this may be, he fully realises that the non-Jewish population of Palestine are entitled to claim from the Mandatory not only assurances but adequate safeguards that the establishment of the National Home, and the consequent Jewish immigration, shall not be conducted in such a manner as to prejudice their civil or religious rights.

5. For this reason Mr. Churchill. blah, blah, blah.​

Typical response from a racist drunk.

Are you saying that monte's links are not valid ?

 

[Phoenall]

Nothing you wrote makes sense. You just make things up.

No that is you as shown by your cherry picked and manipulated cut and pastes of reports. The arab muslims refused to act in good faith and become party to the LoN mandate, then demanded the mandate be changed in their favour OR ELSE.

All in your links that you seem to have a problem reading when they go against your POV

The arab muslims refused to act in good faith and become party to the LoN mandate,​

Indeed, and they stated many times that the were not going to legitimize that scam.

So they cant come back later and complain about the deal they got

 

[MJB12741]

The land was 95% Christian and Jewish in 1943. It was stolen by the Jews in 1948.

WRONG the land went from being 100% Ottoman to 100% LoN and then to 100% Jewish. The arab muslims and Christinas had not held sovereignty since 1099.

Not true.

On the basis of this legal concept, national Palestinian sovereignty was not annulled when Britain was entrusted by the League of Nations with the mandate over Palestine.[6] Furthermore, the mandate over Palestine – as the mandates over Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan – fell into category (A) according to the classification of the League of Nations. This category, in distinction from the categories (B) and (C), implied the expectation of early independence.[7] Henry Cattan rightly concludes: “The legal effect under international law of the detachment of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire and of recognition of its people as an independent nation was to make of this country a separate and independent state.”[8] All the legal assumptions relating to the international status of Palestine were based on the principle according to which sovereignty over a mandated territory lies in its inhabitants.[9] This legal notion has also been confirmed in a United Nations report on the origins of the Palestine problem where it is stated that the sovereignty of Palestine (having been classified as falling under a category “A” Mandate) “could not be alienated either by the Mandatory Power or by the League.”[10]
http://i-p-o.org/palestine-sovereignty.htm ​

The Palestinian's right to independence and sovereignty has been stressed in subsequent UN resolutions.

Wrong as this OFFICIAL report states

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922


2. I am to point out in the first place that, while your Delegation is recognised by Mr. Churchill as representing a large section of the Moslem and Christian inhabitants of Palestine, and while the Secretary of State is anxious to discuss his present proposals informally with recognised representatives, such as yourselves, of any important section of the community, he is not in a position to negotiate officially with you or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine, since no official machinery for representation has as yet been constituted. It is with the object of providing the people of Palestine with a constitutional channel for the expression of their opinions and wishes that the draft constitution has been framed.

3. Mr. Churchill regrets to observe that his personal explanations have apparently failed to convince your Delegation that His Majesty's Government have no intention "of repudiating the obligations into which they have entered towards the Jewish people. He has informed you on more than one occasion that he cannot discuss the future of Palestine upon any other basis than that of the letter addressed by the Right Honourable A. J. Balfour to Lord Rothschild on the 2nd November, 1917, commonly known as the "Balfour Declaration." You state in your letter that the people of Palestine cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion. Mr. Churchill is unable for the reasons stated above to regard your Delegation as officially representing the People of Palestine. He presumes that your statement is not in any case intended to apply to the existing Jewish population of Palestine, which, so far as he is aware, your Delegation makes no claim to represent.
4. With regard to Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, I am to observe that this Article, in so far as it applies to territories severed from the Ottoman Empire, has been interpreted by the Principal Allied Powers in Articles 94 to 97 of the Treaty of Sevres, Syria and Iraq are explicitly referred to in Article 94 of that Treaty as having been provisionally recognised as Independent States, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Article 95, on the other hand, makes no such reference to Palestine. The reason for this is that, as stated in that Article, the Mandatory is to be responsible for putting into effect the Declaration originally made on the 2nd November, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. There is no question of treating the people of Palestine as less advanced than their neighbours in Iraq and Syria; the position is that His Majesty's Government are bound by a pledge which is antecedent to the Covenant of the League of Nations, and they cannot allow a constitutional position to develop in a country for which they have accepted responsibility to the Principal Allied Powers, which may make it impracticable to carry into effect a solemn undertaking given by themselves and their Allies.

5. For this reason Mr. Churchill is unable to accede to the second of the six requests made by your Delegation at the close of your letter under reply. If your Delegation really represents the present attitude of the majority of the Arab population of Palestine, and Mr. Churchill has no grounds for suggesting that this is not the case, it is quite clear that the creation at this stage of a national Government would preclude the fulfilment of the pledge made by the British Government to the Jewish people. It follows that the Principal Allied Powers, concerned as they were to ensure the fulfilment of a policy adopted before the Covenant was drafted, were well advised in applying to Palestine a somewhat different interpretation of paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant than was applied to the neighbouring countries of Iraq and Syria. His Majesty's Government are ready and willing to grant to the people of Palestine the greatest measure of independence consistent with the fulfilment of the pledges referred to. They readily endorse the five remaining requests made at the close of your letter, and it is in the hope of ensuring their realisation that the Secretary of State has invited your Delegation to discuss with him and with members of his department the practical steps which shall be taken to attain these objects.

6. The references in your letter under reply to "a great immigration of alien Jews," "a flood of alien immigration," and "a flood of alien Jewish immigration," coupled with the request that the British Government should "put a stop to all alien immigration," and the reference to the Zionist Organisation in Clause 2 of paragraph (d) of your letter, indicate that your Delegation and the community which they represent, imperfectly apprehend the interpretation placed by His Majesty's Government upon the policy of the National Home for the Jewish people. This interpretation was publicly given in Palestine on the 3rd June, 1921, by the High Commissioner in the following words :—

• 
  
  " These words (National Home) mean that the Jews, who are a people scattered throughout the world, but whose hearts are always turned to Palestine should be enabled to found here their home, and that some amongst them, within the limits fixed by numbers and the interests of the present population, should come to Palestine in order to help by their resources and efforts to develop the country to the advantage of all its inhabitants."

This interpretation was endorsed by the Secretary of State in his speech to the House of Commons on the 14th June, 1921. Mr. Churchill is reluctant to believe that your Delegation, or the people whom they represent, can entertain any objection in principle to the policy as thus interpreted.
7. Mr. Churchill has derived the impression from his interviews with your Delegation that it is not so much the policy itself, as defined in the preceding paragraph, that arouses misgiving, as the unfounded apprehension that the policy will not in practice follow the lines indicated. However this may be, he fully realises that the non-Jewish population of Palestine are entitled to claim from the Mandatory not only assurances but adequate safeguards that the establishment of the National Home, and the consequent Jewish immigration, shall not be conducted in such a manner as to prejudice their civil or religious rights.

5. For this reason Mr. Churchill. blah, blah, blah.​

Typical response from a racist drunk.

Besides being anti American, are you also anti British?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The land was 95% Christian and Jewish in 1943. It was stolen by the Jews in 1948.

WRONG the land went from being 100% Ottoman to 100% LoN and then to 100% Jewish. The arab muslims and Christinas had not held sovereignty since 1099.

Not true.

On the basis of this legal concept, national Palestinian sovereignty was not annulled when Britain was entrusted by the League of Nations with the mandate over Palestine.[6] Furthermore, the mandate over Palestine – as the mandates over Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan – fell into category (A) according to the classification of the League of Nations. This category, in distinction from the categories (B) and (C), implied the expectation of early independence.[7] Henry Cattan rightly concludes: “The legal effect under international law of the detachment of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire and of recognition of its people as an independent nation was to make of this country a separate and independent state.”[8] All the legal assumptions relating to the international status of Palestine were based on the principle according to which sovereignty over a mandated territory lies in its inhabitants.[9] This legal notion has also been confirmed in a United Nations report on the origins of the Palestine problem where it is stated that the sovereignty of Palestine (having been classified as falling under a category “A” Mandate) “could not be alienated either by the Mandatory Power or by the League.”[10]
http://i-p-o.org/palestine-sovereignty.htm ​

The Palestinian's right to independence and sovereignty has been stressed in subsequent UN resolutions.

Wrong as this OFFICIAL report states

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922


2. I am to point out in the first place that, while your Delegation is recognised by Mr. Churchill as representing a large section of the Moslem and Christian inhabitants of Palestine, and while the Secretary of State is anxious to discuss his present proposals informally with recognised representatives, such as yourselves, of any important section of the community, he is not in a position to negotiate officially with you or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine, since no official machinery for representation has as yet been constituted. It is with the object of providing the people of Palestine with a constitutional channel for the expression of their opinions and wishes that the draft constitution has been framed.

3. Mr. Churchill regrets to observe that his personal explanations have apparently failed to convince your Delegation that His Majesty's Government have no intention "of repudiating the obligations into which they have entered towards the Jewish people. He has informed you on more than one occasion that he cannot discuss the future of Palestine upon any other basis than that of the letter addressed by the Right Honourable A. J. Balfour to Lord Rothschild on the 2nd November, 1917, commonly known as the "Balfour Declaration." You state in your letter that the people of Palestine cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion. Mr. Churchill is unable for the reasons stated above to regard your Delegation as officially representing the People of Palestine. He presumes that your statement is not in any case intended to apply to the existing Jewish population of Palestine, which, so far as he is aware, your Delegation makes no claim to represent.
4. With regard to Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, I am to observe that this Article, in so far as it applies to territories severed from the Ottoman Empire, has been interpreted by the Principal Allied Powers in Articles 94 to 97 of the Treaty of Sevres, Syria and Iraq are explicitly referred to in Article 94 of that Treaty as having been provisionally recognised as Independent States, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Article 95, on the other hand, makes no such reference to Palestine. The reason for this is that, as stated in that Article, the Mandatory is to be responsible for putting into effect the Declaration originally made on the 2nd November, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. There is no question of treating the people of Palestine as less advanced than their neighbours in Iraq and Syria; the position is that His Majesty's Government are bound by a pledge which is antecedent to the Covenant of the League of Nations, and they cannot allow a constitutional position to develop in a country for which they have accepted responsibility to the Principal Allied Powers, which may make it impracticable to carry into effect a solemn undertaking given by themselves and their Allies.

5. For this reason Mr. Churchill is unable to accede to the second of the six requests made by your Delegation at the close of your letter under reply. If your Delegation really represents the present attitude of the majority of the Arab population of Palestine, and Mr. Churchill has no grounds for suggesting that this is not the case, it is quite clear that the creation at this stage of a national Government would preclude the fulfilment of the pledge made by the British Government to the Jewish people. It follows that the Principal Allied Powers, concerned as they were to ensure the fulfilment of a policy adopted before the Covenant was drafted, were well advised in applying to Palestine a somewhat different interpretation of paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant than was applied to the neighbouring countries of Iraq and Syria. His Majesty's Government are ready and willing to grant to the people of Palestine the greatest measure of independence consistent with the fulfilment of the pledges referred to. They readily endorse the five remaining requests made at the close of your letter, and it is in the hope of ensuring their realisation that the Secretary of State has invited your Delegation to discuss with him and with members of his department the practical steps which shall be taken to attain these objects.

6. The references in your letter under reply to "a great immigration of alien Jews," "a flood of alien immigration," and "a flood of alien Jewish immigration," coupled with the request that the British Government should "put a stop to all alien immigration," and the reference to the Zionist Organisation in Clause 2 of paragraph (d) of your letter, indicate that your Delegation and the community which they represent, imperfectly apprehend the interpretation placed by His Majesty's Government upon the policy of the National Home for the Jewish people. This interpretation was publicly given in Palestine on the 3rd June, 1921, by the High Commissioner in the following words :—

• 
  
  " These words (National Home) mean that the Jews, who are a people scattered throughout the world, but whose hearts are always turned to Palestine should be enabled to found here their home, and that some amongst them, within the limits fixed by numbers and the interests of the present population, should come to Palestine in order to help by their resources and efforts to develop the country to the advantage of all its inhabitants."

This interpretation was endorsed by the Secretary of State in his speech to the House of Commons on the 14th June, 1921. Mr. Churchill is reluctant to believe that your Delegation, or the people whom they represent, can entertain any objection in principle to the policy as thus interpreted.
7. Mr. Churchill has derived the impression from his interviews with your Delegation that it is not so much the policy itself, as defined in the preceding paragraph, that arouses misgiving, as the unfounded apprehension that the policy will not in practice follow the lines indicated. However this may be, he fully realises that the non-Jewish population of Palestine are entitled to claim from the Mandatory not only assurances but adequate safeguards that the establishment of the National Home, and the consequent Jewish immigration, shall not be conducted in such a manner as to prejudice their civil or religious rights.

5. For this reason Mr. Churchill. blah, blah, blah.​

Typical response from a racist drunk.

Besides being anti American, are you also anti British?

I have issues with government policies as does everyone I know.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

The land was 95% Christian and Jewish in 1943. It was stolen by the Jews in 1948.

WRONG the land went from being 100% Ottoman to 100% LoN and then to 100% Jewish. The arab muslims and Christinas had not held sovereignty since 1099.

Not true.

On the basis of this legal concept, national Palestinian sovereignty was not annulled when Britain was entrusted by the League of Nations with the mandate over Palestine.[6] Furthermore, the mandate over Palestine – as the mandates over Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan – fell into category (A) according to the classification of the League of Nations. This category, in distinction from the categories (B) and (C), implied the expectation of early independence.[7] Henry Cattan rightly concludes: “The legal effect under international law of the detachment of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire and of recognition of its people as an independent nation was to make of this country a separate and independent state.”[8] All the legal assumptions relating to the international status of Palestine were based on the principle according to which sovereignty over a mandated territory lies in its inhabitants.[9] This legal notion has also been confirmed in a United Nations report on the origins of the Palestine problem where it is stated that the sovereignty of Palestine (having been classified as falling under a category “A” Mandate) “could not be alienated either by the Mandatory Power or by the League.”[10]
http://i-p-o.org/palestine-sovereignty.htm ​

The Palestinian's right to independence and sovereignty has been stressed in subsequent UN resolutions.

Wrong as this OFFICIAL report states

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922


2. I am to point out in the first place that, while your Delegation is recognised by Mr. Churchill as representing a large section of the Moslem and Christian inhabitants of Palestine, and while the Secretary of State is anxious to discuss his present proposals informally with recognised representatives, such as yourselves, of any important section of the community, he is not in a position to negotiate officially with you or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine, since no official machinery for representation has as yet been constituted. It is with the object of providing the people of Palestine with a constitutional channel for the expression of their opinions and wishes that the draft constitution has been framed.

3. Mr. Churchill regrets to observe that his personal explanations have apparently failed to convince your Delegation that His Majesty's Government have no intention "of repudiating the obligations into which they have entered towards the Jewish people. He has informed you on more than one occasion that he cannot discuss the future of Palestine upon any other basis than that of the letter addressed by the Right Honourable A. J. Balfour to Lord Rothschild on the 2nd November, 1917, commonly known as the "Balfour Declaration." You state in your letter that the people of Palestine cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion. Mr. Churchill is unable for the reasons stated above to regard your Delegation as officially representing the People of Palestine. He presumes that your statement is not in any case intended to apply to the existing Jewish population of Palestine, which, so far as he is aware, your Delegation makes no claim to represent.
4. With regard to Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, I am to observe that this Article, in so far as it applies to territories severed from the Ottoman Empire, has been interpreted by the Principal Allied Powers in Articles 94 to 97 of the Treaty of Sevres, Syria and Iraq are explicitly referred to in Article 94 of that Treaty as having been provisionally recognised as Independent States, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Article 95, on the other hand, makes no such reference to Palestine. The reason for this is that, as stated in that Article, the Mandatory is to be responsible for putting into effect the Declaration originally made on the 2nd November, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. There is no question of treating the people of Palestine as less advanced than their neighbours in Iraq and Syria; the position is that His Majesty's Government are bound by a pledge which is antecedent to the Covenant of the League of Nations, and they cannot allow a constitutional position to develop in a country for which they have accepted responsibility to the Principal Allied Powers, which may make it impracticable to carry into effect a solemn undertaking given by themselves and their Allies.

5. For this reason Mr. Churchill is unable to accede to the second of the six requests made by your Delegation at the close of your letter under reply. If your Delegation really represents the present attitude of the majority of the Arab population of Palestine, and Mr. Churchill has no grounds for suggesting that this is not the case, it is quite clear that the creation at this stage of a national Government would preclude the fulfilment of the pledge made by the British Government to the Jewish people. It follows that the Principal Allied Powers, concerned as they were to ensure the fulfilment of a policy adopted before the Covenant was drafted, were well advised in applying to Palestine a somewhat different interpretation of paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant than was applied to the neighbouring countries of Iraq and Syria. His Majesty's Government are ready and willing to grant to the people of Palestine the greatest measure of independence consistent with the fulfilment of the pledges referred to. They readily endorse the five remaining requests made at the close of your letter, and it is in the hope of ensuring their realisation that the Secretary of State has invited your Delegation to discuss with him and with members of his department the practical steps which shall be taken to attain these objects.

6. The references in your letter under reply to "a great immigration of alien Jews," "a flood of alien immigration," and "a flood of alien Jewish immigration," coupled with the request that the British Government should "put a stop to all alien immigration," and the reference to the Zionist Organisation in Clause 2 of paragraph (d) of your letter, indicate that your Delegation and the community which they represent, imperfectly apprehend the interpretation placed by His Majesty's Government upon the policy of the National Home for the Jewish people. This interpretation was publicly given in Palestine on the 3rd June, 1921, by the High Commissioner in the following words :—

• 
  
  " These words (National Home) mean that the Jews, who are a people scattered throughout the world, but whose hearts are always turned to Palestine should be enabled to found here their home, and that some amongst them, within the limits fixed by numbers and the interests of the present population, should come to Palestine in order to help by their resources and efforts to develop the country to the advantage of all its inhabitants."

This interpretation was endorsed by the Secretary of State in his speech to the House of Commons on the 14th June, 1921. Mr. Churchill is reluctant to believe that your Delegation, or the people whom they represent, can entertain any objection in principle to the policy as thus interpreted.
7. Mr. Churchill has derived the impression from his interviews with your Delegation that it is not so much the policy itself, as defined in the preceding paragraph, that arouses misgiving, as the unfounded apprehension that the policy will not in practice follow the lines indicated. However this may be, he fully realises that the non-Jewish population of Palestine are entitled to claim from the Mandatory not only assurances but adequate safeguards that the establishment of the National Home, and the consequent Jewish immigration, shall not be conducted in such a manner as to prejudice their civil or religious rights.

5. For this reason Mr. Churchill. blah, blah, blah.​

Typical response from a racist drunk.

Are you trying to discredit Churchill, who fought the Nazis single-handedly at one point? As regards Palestine, he was there at the time and you weren't. I think I'll take his assessment of the situation over yours.

 

[MJB12741]

WRONG the land went from being 100% Ottoman to 100% LoN and then to 100% Jewish. The arab muslims and Christinas had not held sovereignty since 1099.

Not true.

On the basis of this legal concept, national Palestinian sovereignty was not annulled when Britain was entrusted by the League of Nations with the mandate over Palestine.[6] Furthermore, the mandate over Palestine – as the mandates over Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan – fell into category (A) according to the classification of the League of Nations. This category, in distinction from the categories (B) and (C), implied the expectation of early independence.[7] Henry Cattan rightly concludes: “The legal effect under international law of the detachment of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire and of recognition of its people as an independent nation was to make of this country a separate and independent state.”[8] All the legal assumptions relating to the international status of Palestine were based on the principle according to which sovereignty over a mandated territory lies in its inhabitants.[9] This legal notion has also been confirmed in a United Nations report on the origins of the Palestine problem where it is stated that the sovereignty of Palestine (having been classified as falling under a category “A” Mandate) “could not be alienated either by the Mandatory Power or by the League.”[10]
http://i-p-o.org/palestine-sovereignty.htm ​

The Palestinian's right to independence and sovereignty has been stressed in subsequent UN resolutions.

Wrong as this OFFICIAL report states

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922


2. I am to point out in the first place that, while your Delegation is recognised by Mr. Churchill as representing a large section of the Moslem and Christian inhabitants of Palestine, and while the Secretary of State is anxious to discuss his present proposals informally with recognised representatives, such as yourselves, of any important section of the community, he is not in a position to negotiate officially with you or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine, since no official machinery for representation has as yet been constituted. It is with the object of providing the people of Palestine with a constitutional channel for the expression of their opinions and wishes that the draft constitution has been framed.

3. Mr. Churchill regrets to observe that his personal explanations have apparently failed to convince your Delegation that His Majesty's Government have no intention "of repudiating the obligations into which they have entered towards the Jewish people. He has informed you on more than one occasion that he cannot discuss the future of Palestine upon any other basis than that of the letter addressed by the Right Honourable A. J. Balfour to Lord Rothschild on the 2nd November, 1917, commonly known as the "Balfour Declaration." You state in your letter that the people of Palestine cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion. Mr. Churchill is unable for the reasons stated above to regard your Delegation as officially representing the People of Palestine. He presumes that your statement is not in any case intended to apply to the existing Jewish population of Palestine, which, so far as he is aware, your Delegation makes no claim to represent.
4. With regard to Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, I am to observe that this Article, in so far as it applies to territories severed from the Ottoman Empire, has been interpreted by the Principal Allied Powers in Articles 94 to 97 of the Treaty of Sevres, Syria and Iraq are explicitly referred to in Article 94 of that Treaty as having been provisionally recognised as Independent States, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Article 95, on the other hand, makes no such reference to Palestine. The reason for this is that, as stated in that Article, the Mandatory is to be responsible for putting into effect the Declaration originally made on the 2nd November, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. There is no question of treating the people of Palestine as less advanced than their neighbours in Iraq and Syria; the position is that His Majesty's Government are bound by a pledge which is antecedent to the Covenant of the League of Nations, and they cannot allow a constitutional position to develop in a country for which they have accepted responsibility to the Principal Allied Powers, which may make it impracticable to carry into effect a solemn undertaking given by themselves and their Allies.

5. For this reason Mr. Churchill is unable to accede to the second of the six requests made by your Delegation at the close of your letter under reply. If your Delegation really represents the present attitude of the majority of the Arab population of Palestine, and Mr. Churchill has no grounds for suggesting that this is not the case, it is quite clear that the creation at this stage of a national Government would preclude the fulfilment of the pledge made by the British Government to the Jewish people. It follows that the Principal Allied Powers, concerned as they were to ensure the fulfilment of a policy adopted before the Covenant was drafted, were well advised in applying to Palestine a somewhat different interpretation of paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant than was applied to the neighbouring countries of Iraq and Syria. His Majesty's Government are ready and willing to grant to the people of Palestine the greatest measure of independence consistent with the fulfilment of the pledges referred to. They readily endorse the five remaining requests made at the close of your letter, and it is in the hope of ensuring their realisation that the Secretary of State has invited your Delegation to discuss with him and with members of his department the practical steps which shall be taken to attain these objects.

6. The references in your letter under reply to "a great immigration of alien Jews," "a flood of alien immigration," and "a flood of alien Jewish immigration," coupled with the request that the British Government should "put a stop to all alien immigration," and the reference to the Zionist Organisation in Clause 2 of paragraph (d) of your letter, indicate that your Delegation and the community which they represent, imperfectly apprehend the interpretation placed by His Majesty's Government upon the policy of the National Home for the Jewish people. This interpretation was publicly given in Palestine on the 3rd June, 1921, by the High Commissioner in the following words :—

• 
  
  " These words (National Home) mean that the Jews, who are a people scattered throughout the world, but whose hearts are always turned to Palestine should be enabled to found here their home, and that some amongst them, within the limits fixed by numbers and the interests of the present population, should come to Palestine in order to help by their resources and efforts to develop the country to the advantage of all its inhabitants."

This interpretation was endorsed by the Secretary of State in his speech to the House of Commons on the 14th June, 1921. Mr. Churchill is reluctant to believe that your Delegation, or the people whom they represent, can entertain any objection in principle to the policy as thus interpreted.
7. Mr. Churchill has derived the impression from his interviews with your Delegation that it is not so much the policy itself, as defined in the preceding paragraph, that arouses misgiving, as the unfounded apprehension that the policy will not in practice follow the lines indicated. However this may be, he fully realises that the non-Jewish population of Palestine are entitled to claim from the Mandatory not only assurances but adequate safeguards that the establishment of the National Home, and the consequent Jewish immigration, shall not be conducted in such a manner as to prejudice their civil or religious rights.

5. For this reason Mr. Churchill. blah, blah, blah.​

Typical response from a racist drunk.

Besides being anti American, are you also anti British?

I have issues with government policies as does everyone I know.

Well then what "issues" do you have with Palestinian governemnent policies?

 

[Phoenall]

WRONG the land went from being 100% Ottoman to 100% LoN and then to 100% Jewish. The arab muslims and Christinas had not held sovereignty since 1099.

Not true.

On the basis of this legal concept, national Palestinian sovereignty was not annulled when Britain was entrusted by the League of Nations with the mandate over Palestine.[6] Furthermore, the mandate over Palestine – as the mandates over Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan – fell into category (A) according to the classification of the League of Nations. This category, in distinction from the categories (B) and (C), implied the expectation of early independence.[7] Henry Cattan rightly concludes: “The legal effect under international law of the detachment of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire and of recognition of its people as an independent nation was to make of this country a separate and independent state.”[8] All the legal assumptions relating to the international status of Palestine were based on the principle according to which sovereignty over a mandated territory lies in its inhabitants.[9] This legal notion has also been confirmed in a United Nations report on the origins of the Palestine problem where it is stated that the sovereignty of Palestine (having been classified as falling under a category “A” Mandate) “could not be alienated either by the Mandatory Power or by the League.”[10]
http://i-p-o.org/palestine-sovereignty.htm ​

The Palestinian's right to independence and sovereignty has been stressed in subsequent UN resolutions.

Wrong as this OFFICIAL report states

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922


2. I am to point out in the first place that, while your Delegation is recognised by Mr. Churchill as representing a large section of the Moslem and Christian inhabitants of Palestine, and while the Secretary of State is anxious to discuss his present proposals informally with recognised representatives, such as yourselves, of any important section of the community, he is not in a position to negotiate officially with you or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine, since no official machinery for representation has as yet been constituted. It is with the object of providing the people of Palestine with a constitutional channel for the expression of their opinions and wishes that the draft constitution has been framed.

3. Mr. Churchill regrets to observe that his personal explanations have apparently failed to convince your Delegation that His Majesty's Government have no intention "of repudiating the obligations into which they have entered towards the Jewish people. He has informed you on more than one occasion that he cannot discuss the future of Palestine upon any other basis than that of the letter addressed by the Right Honourable A. J. Balfour to Lord Rothschild on the 2nd November, 1917, commonly known as the "Balfour Declaration." You state in your letter that the people of Palestine cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion. Mr. Churchill is unable for the reasons stated above to regard your Delegation as officially representing the People of Palestine. He presumes that your statement is not in any case intended to apply to the existing Jewish population of Palestine, which, so far as he is aware, your Delegation makes no claim to represent.
4. With regard to Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, I am to observe that this Article, in so far as it applies to territories severed from the Ottoman Empire, has been interpreted by the Principal Allied Powers in Articles 94 to 97 of the Treaty of Sevres, Syria and Iraq are explicitly referred to in Article 94 of that Treaty as having been provisionally recognised as Independent States, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Article 95, on the other hand, makes no such reference to Palestine. The reason for this is that, as stated in that Article, the Mandatory is to be responsible for putting into effect the Declaration originally made on the 2nd November, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. There is no question of treating the people of Palestine as less advanced than their neighbours in Iraq and Syria; the position is that His Majesty's Government are bound by a pledge which is antecedent to the Covenant of the League of Nations, and they cannot allow a constitutional position to develop in a country for which they have accepted responsibility to the Principal Allied Powers, which may make it impracticable to carry into effect a solemn undertaking given by themselves and their Allies.

5. For this reason Mr. Churchill is unable to accede to the second of the six requests made by your Delegation at the close of your letter under reply. If your Delegation really represents the present attitude of the majority of the Arab population of Palestine, and Mr. Churchill has no grounds for suggesting that this is not the case, it is quite clear that the creation at this stage of a national Government would preclude the fulfilment of the pledge made by the British Government to the Jewish people. It follows that the Principal Allied Powers, concerned as they were to ensure the fulfilment of a policy adopted before the Covenant was drafted, were well advised in applying to Palestine a somewhat different interpretation of paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant than was applied to the neighbouring countries of Iraq and Syria. His Majesty's Government are ready and willing to grant to the people of Palestine the greatest measure of independence consistent with the fulfilment of the pledges referred to. They readily endorse the five remaining requests made at the close of your letter, and it is in the hope of ensuring their realisation that the Secretary of State has invited your Delegation to discuss with him and with members of his department the practical steps which shall be taken to attain these objects.

6. The references in your letter under reply to "a great immigration of alien Jews," "a flood of alien immigration," and "a flood of alien Jewish immigration," coupled with the request that the British Government should "put a stop to all alien immigration," and the reference to the Zionist Organisation in Clause 2 of paragraph (d) of your letter, indicate that your Delegation and the community which they represent, imperfectly apprehend the interpretation placed by His Majesty's Government upon the policy of the National Home for the Jewish people. This interpretation was publicly given in Palestine on the 3rd June, 1921, by the High Commissioner in the following words :—

• 
  
  " These words (National Home) mean that the Jews, who are a people scattered throughout the world, but whose hearts are always turned to Palestine should be enabled to found here their home, and that some amongst them, within the limits fixed by numbers and the interests of the present population, should come to Palestine in order to help by their resources and efforts to develop the country to the advantage of all its inhabitants."

This interpretation was endorsed by the Secretary of State in his speech to the House of Commons on the 14th June, 1921. Mr. Churchill is reluctant to believe that your Delegation, or the people whom they represent, can entertain any objection in principle to the policy as thus interpreted.
7. Mr. Churchill has derived the impression from his interviews with your Delegation that it is not so much the policy itself, as defined in the preceding paragraph, that arouses misgiving, as the unfounded apprehension that the policy will not in practice follow the lines indicated. However this may be, he fully realises that the non-Jewish population of Palestine are entitled to claim from the Mandatory not only assurances but adequate safeguards that the establishment of the National Home, and the consequent Jewish immigration, shall not be conducted in such a manner as to prejudice their civil or religious rights.

5. For this reason Mr. Churchill. blah, blah, blah.​

Typical response from a racist drunk.

Besides being anti American, are you also anti British?

I have issues with government policies as does everyone I know.

Unless they support islamonazi terrorism

 

[MJB12741]

Not true.

On the basis of this legal concept, national Palestinian sovereignty was not annulled when Britain was entrusted by the League of Nations with the mandate over Palestine.[6] Furthermore, the mandate over Palestine – as the mandates over Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan – fell into category (A) according to the classification of the League of Nations. This category, in distinction from the categories (B) and (C), implied the expectation of early independence.[7] Henry Cattan rightly concludes: “The legal effect under international law of the detachment of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire and of recognition of its people as an independent nation was to make of this country a separate and independent state.”[8] All the legal assumptions relating to the international status of Palestine were based on the principle according to which sovereignty over a mandated territory lies in its inhabitants.[9] This legal notion has also been confirmed in a United Nations report on the origins of the Palestine problem where it is stated that the sovereignty of Palestine (having been classified as falling under a category “A” Mandate) “could not be alienated either by the Mandatory Power or by the League.”[10]
http://i-p-o.org/palestine-sovereignty.htm ​

The Palestinian's right to independence and sovereignty has been stressed in subsequent UN resolutions.

Wrong as this OFFICIAL report states

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization British policy in Palestine Churchill White Paper - UK documentation Cmd. 1700 Non-UN document excerpts 1 July 1922


2. I am to point out in the first place that, while your Delegation is recognised by Mr. Churchill as representing a large section of the Moslem and Christian inhabitants of Palestine, and while the Secretary of State is anxious to discuss his present proposals informally with recognised representatives, such as yourselves, of any important section of the community, he is not in a position to negotiate officially with you or with any other body which claims to represent the whole or, part of the people of Palestine, since no official machinery for representation has as yet been constituted. It is with the object of providing the people of Palestine with a constitutional channel for the expression of their opinions and wishes that the draft constitution has been framed.

3. Mr. Churchill regrets to observe that his personal explanations have apparently failed to convince your Delegation that His Majesty's Government have no intention "of repudiating the obligations into which they have entered towards the Jewish people. He has informed you on more than one occasion that he cannot discuss the future of Palestine upon any other basis than that of the letter addressed by the Right Honourable A. J. Balfour to Lord Rothschild on the 2nd November, 1917, commonly known as the "Balfour Declaration." You state in your letter that the people of Palestine cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion. Mr. Churchill is unable for the reasons stated above to regard your Delegation as officially representing the People of Palestine. He presumes that your statement is not in any case intended to apply to the existing Jewish population of Palestine, which, so far as he is aware, your Delegation makes no claim to represent.
4. With regard to Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, I am to observe that this Article, in so far as it applies to territories severed from the Ottoman Empire, has been interpreted by the Principal Allied Powers in Articles 94 to 97 of the Treaty of Sevres, Syria and Iraq are explicitly referred to in Article 94 of that Treaty as having been provisionally recognised as Independent States, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Article 95, on the other hand, makes no such reference to Palestine. The reason for this is that, as stated in that Article, the Mandatory is to be responsible for putting into effect the Declaration originally made on the 2nd November, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. There is no question of treating the people of Palestine as less advanced than their neighbours in Iraq and Syria; the position is that His Majesty's Government are bound by a pledge which is antecedent to the Covenant of the League of Nations, and they cannot allow a constitutional position to develop in a country for which they have accepted responsibility to the Principal Allied Powers, which may make it impracticable to carry into effect a solemn undertaking given by themselves and their Allies.

5. For this reason Mr. Churchill is unable to accede to the second of the six requests made by your Delegation at the close of your letter under reply. If your Delegation really represents the present attitude of the majority of the Arab population of Palestine, and Mr. Churchill has no grounds for suggesting that this is not the case, it is quite clear that the creation at this stage of a national Government would preclude the fulfilment of the pledge made by the British Government to the Jewish people. It follows that the Principal Allied Powers, concerned as they were to ensure the fulfilment of a policy adopted before the Covenant was drafted, were well advised in applying to Palestine a somewhat different interpretation of paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant than was applied to the neighbouring countries of Iraq and Syria. His Majesty's Government are ready and willing to grant to the people of Palestine the greatest measure of independence consistent with the fulfilment of the pledges referred to. They readily endorse the five remaining requests made at the close of your letter, and it is in the hope of ensuring their realisation that the Secretary of State has invited your Delegation to discuss with him and with members of his department the practical steps which shall be taken to attain these objects.

6. The references in your letter under reply to "a great immigration of alien Jews," "a flood of alien immigration," and "a flood of alien Jewish immigration," coupled with the request that the British Government should "put a stop to all alien immigration," and the reference to the Zionist Organisation in Clause 2 of paragraph (d) of your letter, indicate that your Delegation and the community which they represent, imperfectly apprehend the interpretation placed by His Majesty's Government upon the policy of the National Home for the Jewish people. This interpretation was publicly given in Palestine on the 3rd June, 1921, by the High Commissioner in the following words :—

• 
  
  " These words (National Home) mean that the Jews, who are a people scattered throughout the world, but whose hearts are always turned to Palestine should be enabled to found here their home, and that some amongst them, within the limits fixed by numbers and the interests of the present population, should come to Palestine in order to help by their resources and efforts to develop the country to the advantage of all its inhabitants."

This interpretation was endorsed by the Secretary of State in his speech to the House of Commons on the 14th June, 1921. Mr. Churchill is reluctant to believe that your Delegation, or the people whom they represent, can entertain any objection in principle to the policy as thus interpreted.
7. Mr. Churchill has derived the impression from his interviews with your Delegation that it is not so much the policy itself, as defined in the preceding paragraph, that arouses misgiving, as the unfounded apprehension that the policy will not in practice follow the lines indicated. However this may be, he fully realises that the non-Jewish population of Palestine are entitled to claim from the Mandatory not only assurances but adequate safeguards that the establishment of the National Home, and the consequent Jewish immigration, shall not be conducted in such a manner as to prejudice their civil or religious rights.

5. For this reason Mr. Churchill. blah, blah, blah.​

Typical response from a racist drunk.

Besides being anti American, are you also anti British?

I have issues with government policies as does everyone I know.

Unless they support islamonazi terrorism

Let us be kind & give Tinmore an opportunity to voice his "issues" against the government of Hamas.

 

[jillian]

The Zionists in Israel say Israel wants peace. And yet Israel still refuses to turn over all their nukes, fighter jets, tanks & sophisticated weaponry to the noble peace loving, life loving Palestinians to protect & defend Israel. Golly gee, why is that?

Israel wants peace. Period. - Al Jazeera English

tissue?

Israel does want peace. and as soon as the terrorists get on board, we can have discussions about your wish to prevent Israel from defending itself.

 

[fanger]

The terrorist's are already onboard with israel, they could hold a meeting at my location

 

[MJB12741]

The Zionists in Israel say Israel wants peace. And yet Israel still refuses to turn over all their nukes, fighter jets, tanks & sophisticated weaponry to the noble peace loving, life loving Palestinians to protect & defend Israel. Golly gee, why is that?

Israel wants peace. Period. - Al Jazeera English

tissue?

Israel does want peace. and as soon as the terrorists get on board, we can have discussions about your wish to prevent Israel from defending itself.

The terrorists will never get on board. They will always continue to kill each other & all the Israeli's they can as well to honor Allah.

 

[montelatici]

The terrorist will never get on board.

"118. The lull in terrorist activity did not continue throughout the war years. The Jewish community resented the Land Transfers Regulations and the measures taken against unauthorised immigration. In 1942, a small group of Zionist extremists, led by Abraham Stern, came into prominence with a series of politically motivated murders and robberies in the Tel Aviv area. In the following year there came to light a widespread conspiracy, connected with Hagana (an illegal military formation controlled by the Jewish Agency), for stealing arms and ammunition from the British forces in the Middle East. In August, 1944, the High commissioner narrowly escaped death in an ambush outside Jerusalem. three months later, on the 6th November, the British Minister of State in the Middle East. (Lord Moyne was assassinated in Cairo by two members of the Stern group. A third illegal Jewish organization, the Irgun Zvai Leumi, was responsible for much destruction of Government property during 1944. The outrages perpetrated by the Stern group and the Irgun Zvai Leumi were condemned by the official spokesmen of the Jewish community.

119. During the early months of 1945 security conditions generally were better than for some time past. A declaration in May by the Irgun Zvai Leumi to the effect that V-day for the world would be D-day for them was, however, the prelude to a series of outrages of increasing scope and intensity, culminating in a country wide attack on communications on June 16th, 1946, in which Hagana played a principal part. Damage caused by terrorist actin on 10th, 16th and 17th June was estimated at P.300,000. Orders were then given to implement the plan directed against the whole network of illegal armed organisations. Action included the arrest of a number of Jewish leaders, some of them members of the Executive of the Jewish Agency, who were known to have been personally implicated in the organisation of acts of violence in Palestine*.

120. On the 22nd July, the campaign conducted by terrorist organisations reached a new climax with an explosion which wrecked a wing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, containing the offices of the government Secretariat as well as part of military headquarters, and killed 86 public servants, Arab, Jewish and British, as well as five members of the public. Later terrorist activities have included the kidnapping of a British judge and of British officers, sabotage of the railway system and of oil installations at Haifa, and the blowing up of a British community as threatened, non-essential British civilians and military families were evacuated from Palestine and the remaining members of the British community were concentrated in security zones at the beginning of February, 1947. In the same month “statutory martial law” was imposed for a limited period on an area of the Lydda district comprising Tel Aviv (with the Jewish quarters of Jaffa), Ramat Gan, Benei Braq and Petah Tiqva, as well as on an area of Jerusalem predominantly inhabited to Jews."

A AC.14 8 of 2 October 1947

 

[Phoenall]

The terrorist will never get on board.

"118. The lull in terrorist activity did not continue throughout the war years. The Jewish community resented the Land Transfers Regulations and the measures taken against unauthorised immigration. In 1942, a small group of Zionist extremists, led by Abraham Stern, came into prominence with a series of politically motivated murders and robberies in the Tel Aviv area. In the following year there came to light a widespread conspiracy, connected with Hagana (an illegal military formation controlled by the Jewish Agency), for stealing arms and ammunition from the British forces in the Middle East. In August, 1944, the High commissioner narrowly escaped death in an ambush outside Jerusalem. three months later, on the 6th November, the British Minister of State in the Middle East. (Lord Moyne was assassinated in Cairo by two members of the Stern group. A third illegal Jewish organization, the Irgun Zvai Leumi, was responsible for much destruction of Government property during 1944. The outrages perpetrated by the Stern group and the Irgun Zvai Leumi were condemned by the official spokesmen of the Jewish community.

119. During the early months of 1945 security conditions generally were better than for some time past. A declaration in May by the Irgun Zvai Leumi to the effect that V-day for the world would be D-day for them was, however, the prelude to a series of outrages of increasing scope and intensity, culminating in a country wide attack on communications on June 16th, 1946, in which Hagana played a principal part. Damage caused by terrorist actin on 10th, 16th and 17th June was estimated at P.300,000. Orders were then given to implement the plan directed against the whole network of illegal armed organisations. Action included the arrest of a number of Jewish leaders, some of them members of the Executive of the Jewish Agency, who were known to have been personally implicated in the organisation of acts of violence in Palestine*.

120. On the 22nd July, the campaign conducted by terrorist organisations reached a new climax with an explosion which wrecked a wing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, containing the offices of the government Secretariat as well as part of military headquarters, and killed 86 public servants, Arab, Jewish and British, as well as five members of the public. Later terrorist activities have included the kidnapping of a British judge and of British officers, sabotage of the railway system and of oil installations at Haifa, and the blowing up of a British community as threatened, non-essential British civilians and military families were evacuated from Palestine and the remaining members of the British community were concentrated in security zones at the beginning of February, 1947. In the same month “statutory martial law” was imposed for a limited period on an area of the Lydda district comprising Tel Aviv (with the Jewish quarters of Jaffa), Ramat Gan, Benei Braq and Petah Tiqva, as well as on an area of Jerusalem predominantly inhabited to Jews."

A AC.14 8 of 2 October 1947

So another NON UN report that has no validity that you will claim is a UN document because it is in the UN archives

Now if you had read it you would see that it destroys many of your claims and I will now go through the list so you can explain why they don't


1) The territory now known as Palestine formed part of the Ottoman empire. So not Palestine before the date of the letter October 2 1847

2)
The principal obligations of the mandatory Power are defined in Article 2 of the Mandate, which reads as follows:

• • 
    “The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”

 

[MJB12741]

The terrorist will never get on board.

"118. The lull in terrorist activity did not continue throughout the war years. The Jewish community resented the Land Transfers Regulations and the measures taken against unauthorised immigration. In 1942, a small group of Zionist extremists, led by Abraham Stern, came into prominence with a series of politically motivated murders and robberies in the Tel Aviv area. In the following year there came to light a widespread conspiracy, connected with Hagana (an illegal military formation controlled by the Jewish Agency), for stealing arms and ammunition from the British forces in the Middle East. In August, 1944, the High commissioner narrowly escaped death in an ambush outside Jerusalem. three months later, on the 6th November, the British Minister of State in the Middle East. (Lord Moyne was assassinated in Cairo by two members of the Stern group. A third illegal Jewish organization, the Irgun Zvai Leumi, was responsible for much destruction of Government property during 1944. The outrages perpetrated by the Stern group and the Irgun Zvai Leumi were condemned by the official spokesmen of the Jewish community.

119. During the early months of 1945 security conditions generally were better than for some time past. A declaration in May by the Irgun Zvai Leumi to the effect that V-day for the world would be D-day for them was, however, the prelude to a series of outrages of increasing scope and intensity, culminating in a country wide attack on communications on June 16th, 1946, in which Hagana played a principal part. Damage caused by terrorist actin on 10th, 16th and 17th June was estimated at P.300,000. Orders were then given to implement the plan directed against the whole network of illegal armed organisations. Action included the arrest of a number of Jewish leaders, some of them members of the Executive of the Jewish Agency, who were known to have been personally implicated in the organisation of acts of violence in Palestine*.

120. On the 22nd July, the campaign conducted by terrorist organisations reached a new climax with an explosion which wrecked a wing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, containing the offices of the government Secretariat as well as part of military headquarters, and killed 86 public servants, Arab, Jewish and British, as well as five members of the public. Later terrorist activities have included the kidnapping of a British judge and of British officers, sabotage of the railway system and of oil installations at Haifa, and the blowing up of a British community as threatened, non-essential British civilians and military families were evacuated from Palestine and the remaining members of the British community were concentrated in security zones at the beginning of February, 1947. In the same month “statutory martial law” was imposed for a limited period on an area of the Lydda district comprising Tel Aviv (with the Jewish quarters of Jaffa), Ramat Gan, Benei Braq and Petah Tiqva, as well as on an area of Jerusalem predominantly inhabited to Jews."

A AC.14 8 of 2 October 1947

Eh, Monte, the rest of us are having a serious discussion with current reality. Can you handle that?

 

[montelatici]

The terrorist will never get on board.

"118. The lull in terrorist activity did not continue throughout the war years. The Jewish community resented the Land Transfers Regulations and the measures taken against unauthorised immigration. In 1942, a small group of Zionist extremists, led by Abraham Stern, came into prominence with a series of politically motivated murders and robberies in the Tel Aviv area. In the following year there came to light a widespread conspiracy, connected with Hagana (an illegal military formation controlled by the Jewish Agency), for stealing arms and ammunition from the British forces in the Middle East. In August, 1944, the High commissioner narrowly escaped death in an ambush outside Jerusalem. three months later, on the 6th November, the British Minister of State in the Middle East. (Lord Moyne was assassinated in Cairo by two members of the Stern group. A third illegal Jewish organization, the Irgun Zvai Leumi, was responsible for much destruction of Government property during 1944. The outrages perpetrated by the Stern group and the Irgun Zvai Leumi were condemned by the official spokesmen of the Jewish community.

119. During the early months of 1945 security conditions generally were better than for some time past. A declaration in May by the Irgun Zvai Leumi to the effect that V-day for the world would be D-day for them was, however, the prelude to a series of outrages of increasing scope and intensity, culminating in a country wide attack on communications on June 16th, 1946, in which Hagana played a principal part. Damage caused by terrorist actin on 10th, 16th and 17th June was estimated at P.300,000. Orders were then given to implement the plan directed against the whole network of illegal armed organisations. Action included the arrest of a number of Jewish leaders, some of them members of the Executive of the Jewish Agency, who were known to have been personally implicated in the organisation of acts of violence in Palestine*.

120. On the 22nd July, the campaign conducted by terrorist organisations reached a new climax with an explosion which wrecked a wing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, containing the offices of the government Secretariat as well as part of military headquarters, and killed 86 public servants, Arab, Jewish and British, as well as five members of the public. Later terrorist activities have included the kidnapping of a British judge and of British officers, sabotage of the railway system and of oil installations at Haifa, and the blowing up of a British community as threatened, non-essential British civilians and military families were evacuated from Palestine and the remaining members of the British community were concentrated in security zones at the beginning of February, 1947. In the same month “statutory martial law” was imposed for a limited period on an area of the Lydda district comprising Tel Aviv (with the Jewish quarters of Jaffa), Ramat Gan, Benei Braq and Petah Tiqva, as well as on an area of Jerusalem predominantly inhabited to Jews."

A AC.14 8 of 2 October 1947

Eh, Monte, the rest of us are having a serious discussion with current reality. Can you handle that?

Your definition of reality is Hasbara propaganda. My reality relies on fact.

 

[Phoenall]

The terrorist will never get on board.

"118. The lull in terrorist activity did not continue throughout the war years. The Jewish community resented the Land Transfers Regulations and the measures taken against unauthorised immigration. In 1942, a small group of Zionist extremists, led by Abraham Stern, came into prominence with a series of politically motivated murders and robberies in the Tel Aviv area. In the following year there came to light a widespread conspiracy, connected with Hagana (an illegal military formation controlled by the Jewish Agency), for stealing arms and ammunition from the British forces in the Middle East. In August, 1944, the High commissioner narrowly escaped death in an ambush outside Jerusalem. three months later, on the 6th November, the British Minister of State in the Middle East. (Lord Moyne was assassinated in Cairo by two members of the Stern group. A third illegal Jewish organization, the Irgun Zvai Leumi, was responsible for much destruction of Government property during 1944. The outrages perpetrated by the Stern group and the Irgun Zvai Leumi were condemned by the official spokesmen of the Jewish community.

119. During the early months of 1945 security conditions generally were better than for some time past. A declaration in May by the Irgun Zvai Leumi to the effect that V-day for the world would be D-day for them was, however, the prelude to a series of outrages of increasing scope and intensity, culminating in a country wide attack on communications on June 16th, 1946, in which Hagana played a principal part. Damage caused by terrorist actin on 10th, 16th and 17th June was estimated at P.300,000. Orders were then given to implement the plan directed against the whole network of illegal armed organisations. Action included the arrest of a number of Jewish leaders, some of them members of the Executive of the Jewish Agency, who were known to have been personally implicated in the organisation of acts of violence in Palestine*.

120. On the 22nd July, the campaign conducted by terrorist organisations reached a new climax with an explosion which wrecked a wing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, containing the offices of the government Secretariat as well as part of military headquarters, and killed 86 public servants, Arab, Jewish and British, as well as five members of the public. Later terrorist activities have included the kidnapping of a British judge and of British officers, sabotage of the railway system and of oil installations at Haifa, and the blowing up of a British community as threatened, non-essential British civilians and military families were evacuated from Palestine and the remaining members of the British community were concentrated in security zones at the beginning of February, 1947. In the same month “statutory martial law” was imposed for a limited period on an area of the Lydda district comprising Tel Aviv (with the Jewish quarters of Jaffa), Ramat Gan, Benei Braq and Petah Tiqva, as well as on an area of Jerusalem predominantly inhabited to Jews."

A AC.14 8 of 2 October 1947

Eh, Monte, the rest of us are having a serious discussion with current reality. Can you handle that?

Your definition of reality is Hasbara propaganda. My reality relies on fact.

YEAH fact as in NAZI JEW HATRED and ISLAMONAZI LIES

 

[MJB12741]

The terrorist will never get on board.

"118. The lull in terrorist activity did not continue throughout the war years. The Jewish community resented the Land Transfers Regulations and the measures taken against unauthorised immigration. In 1942, a small group of Zionist extremists, led by Abraham Stern, came into prominence with a series of politically motivated murders and robberies in the Tel Aviv area. In the following year there came to light a widespread conspiracy, connected with Hagana (an illegal military formation controlled by the Jewish Agency), for stealing arms and ammunition from the British forces in the Middle East. In August, 1944, the High commissioner narrowly escaped death in an ambush outside Jerusalem. three months later, on the 6th November, the British Minister of State in the Middle East. (Lord Moyne was assassinated in Cairo by two members of the Stern group. A third illegal Jewish organization, the Irgun Zvai Leumi, was responsible for much destruction of Government property during 1944. The outrages perpetrated by the Stern group and the Irgun Zvai Leumi were condemned by the official spokesmen of the Jewish community.

119. During the early months of 1945 security conditions generally were better than for some time past. A declaration in May by the Irgun Zvai Leumi to the effect that V-day for the world would be D-day for them was, however, the prelude to a series of outrages of increasing scope and intensity, culminating in a country wide attack on communications on June 16th, 1946, in which Hagana played a principal part. Damage caused by terrorist actin on 10th, 16th and 17th June was estimated at P.300,000. Orders were then given to implement the plan directed against the whole network of illegal armed organisations. Action included the arrest of a number of Jewish leaders, some of them members of the Executive of the Jewish Agency, who were known to have been personally implicated in the organisation of acts of violence in Palestine*.

120. On the 22nd July, the campaign conducted by terrorist organisations reached a new climax with an explosion which wrecked a wing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, containing the offices of the government Secretariat as well as part of military headquarters, and killed 86 public servants, Arab, Jewish and British, as well as five members of the public. Later terrorist activities have included the kidnapping of a British judge and of British officers, sabotage of the railway system and of oil installations at Haifa, and the blowing up of a British community as threatened, non-essential British civilians and military families were evacuated from Palestine and the remaining members of the British community were concentrated in security zones at the beginning of February, 1947. In the same month “statutory martial law” was imposed for a limited period on an area of the Lydda district comprising Tel Aviv (with the Jewish quarters of Jaffa), Ramat Gan, Benei Braq and Petah Tiqva, as well as on an area of Jerusalem predominantly inhabited to Jews."

A AC.14 8 of 2 October 1947

Eh, Monte, the rest of us are having a serious discussion with current reality. Can you handle that?

Your definition of reality is Hasbara propaganda. My reality relies on fact.

Your "reaity" lies in a sealed box with you in it.

 

[montelatici]

The terrorist will never get on board.

"118. The lull in terrorist activity did not continue throughout the war years. The Jewish community resented the Land Transfers Regulations and the measures taken against unauthorised immigration. In 1942, a small group of Zionist extremists, led by Abraham Stern, came into prominence with a series of politically motivated murders and robberies in the Tel Aviv area. In the following year there came to light a widespread conspiracy, connected with Hagana (an illegal military formation controlled by the Jewish Agency), for stealing arms and ammunition from the British forces in the Middle East. In August, 1944, the High commissioner narrowly escaped death in an ambush outside Jerusalem. three months later, on the 6th November, the British Minister of State in the Middle East. (Lord Moyne was assassinated in Cairo by two members of the Stern group. A third illegal Jewish organization, the Irgun Zvai Leumi, was responsible for much destruction of Government property during 1944. The outrages perpetrated by the Stern group and the Irgun Zvai Leumi were condemned by the official spokesmen of the Jewish community.

119. During the early months of 1945 security conditions generally were better than for some time past. A declaration in May by the Irgun Zvai Leumi to the effect that V-day for the world would be D-day for them was, however, the prelude to a series of outrages of increasing scope and intensity, culminating in a country wide attack on communications on June 16th, 1946, in which Hagana played a principal part. Damage caused by terrorist actin on 10th, 16th and 17th June was estimated at P.300,000. Orders were then given to implement the plan directed against the whole network of illegal armed organisations. Action included the arrest of a number of Jewish leaders, some of them members of the Executive of the Jewish Agency, who were known to have been personally implicated in the organisation of acts of violence in Palestine*.

120. On the 22nd July, the campaign conducted by terrorist organisations reached a new climax with an explosion which wrecked a wing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, containing the offices of the government Secretariat as well as part of military headquarters, and killed 86 public servants, Arab, Jewish and British, as well as five members of the public. Later terrorist activities have included the kidnapping of a British judge and of British officers, sabotage of the railway system and of oil installations at Haifa, and the blowing up of a British community as threatened, non-essential British civilians and military families were evacuated from Palestine and the remaining members of the British community were concentrated in security zones at the beginning of February, 1947. In the same month “statutory martial law” was imposed for a limited period on an area of the Lydda district comprising Tel Aviv (with the Jewish quarters of Jaffa), Ramat Gan, Benei Braq and Petah Tiqva, as well as on an area of Jerusalem predominantly inhabited to Jews."

A AC.14 8 of 2 October 1947

Eh, Monte, the rest of us are having a serious discussion with current reality. Can you handle that?

Your definition of reality is Hasbara propaganda. My reality relies on fact.

Your "reaity" lies in a sealed box with you in it.

Of course to you, that have only Zionist propaganda to spout, would say that.

 

[Phoenall]

The terrorist will never get on board.

"118. The lull in terrorist activity did not continue throughout the war years. The Jewish community resented the Land Transfers Regulations and the measures taken against unauthorised immigration. In 1942, a small group of Zionist extremists, led by Abraham Stern, came into prominence with a series of politically motivated murders and robberies in the Tel Aviv area. In the following year there came to light a widespread conspiracy, connected with Hagana (an illegal military formation controlled by the Jewish Agency), for stealing arms and ammunition from the British forces in the Middle East. In August, 1944, the High commissioner narrowly escaped death in an ambush outside Jerusalem. three months later, on the 6th November, the British Minister of State in the Middle East. (Lord Moyne was assassinated in Cairo by two members of the Stern group. A third illegal Jewish organization, the Irgun Zvai Leumi, was responsible for much destruction of Government property during 1944. The outrages perpetrated by the Stern group and the Irgun Zvai Leumi were condemned by the official spokesmen of the Jewish community.

119. During the early months of 1945 security conditions generally were better than for some time past. A declaration in May by the Irgun Zvai Leumi to the effect that V-day for the world would be D-day for them was, however, the prelude to a series of outrages of increasing scope and intensity, culminating in a country wide attack on communications on June 16th, 1946, in which Hagana played a principal part. Damage caused by terrorist actin on 10th, 16th and 17th June was estimated at P.300,000. Orders were then given to implement the plan directed against the whole network of illegal armed organisations. Action included the arrest of a number of Jewish leaders, some of them members of the Executive of the Jewish Agency, who were known to have been personally implicated in the organisation of acts of violence in Palestine*.

120. On the 22nd July, the campaign conducted by terrorist organisations reached a new climax with an explosion which wrecked a wing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, containing the offices of the government Secretariat as well as part of military headquarters, and killed 86 public servants, Arab, Jewish and British, as well as five members of the public. Later terrorist activities have included the kidnapping of a British judge and of British officers, sabotage of the railway system and of oil installations at Haifa, and the blowing up of a British community as threatened, non-essential British civilians and military families were evacuated from Palestine and the remaining members of the British community were concentrated in security zones at the beginning of February, 1947. In the same month “statutory martial law” was imposed for a limited period on an area of the Lydda district comprising Tel Aviv (with the Jewish quarters of Jaffa), Ramat Gan, Benei Braq and Petah Tiqva, as well as on an area of Jerusalem predominantly inhabited to Jews."

A AC.14 8 of 2 October 1947

Eh, Monte, the rest of us are having a serious discussion with current reality. Can you handle that?

Your definition of reality is Hasbara propaganda. My reality relies on fact.

Your "reaity" lies in a sealed box with you in it.

Of course to you, that have only Zionist propaganda to spout, would say that.

While you only have NAZI propaganda, islamonazi propaganda and Catholic brainwashing

 

[MJB12741]

The terrorist will never get on board.

"118. The lull in terrorist activity did not continue throughout the war years. The Jewish community resented the Land Transfers Regulations and the measures taken against unauthorised immigration. In 1942, a small group of Zionist extremists, led by Abraham Stern, came into prominence with a series of politically motivated murders and robberies in the Tel Aviv area. In the following year there came to light a widespread conspiracy, connected with Hagana (an illegal military formation controlled by the Jewish Agency), for stealing arms and ammunition from the British forces in the Middle East. In August, 1944, the High commissioner narrowly escaped death in an ambush outside Jerusalem. three months later, on the 6th November, the British Minister of State in the Middle East. (Lord Moyne was assassinated in Cairo by two members of the Stern group. A third illegal Jewish organization, the Irgun Zvai Leumi, was responsible for much destruction of Government property during 1944. The outrages perpetrated by the Stern group and the Irgun Zvai Leumi were condemned by the official spokesmen of the Jewish community.

119. During the early months of 1945 security conditions generally were better than for some time past. A declaration in May by the Irgun Zvai Leumi to the effect that V-day for the world would be D-day for them was, however, the prelude to a series of outrages of increasing scope and intensity, culminating in a country wide attack on communications on June 16th, 1946, in which Hagana played a principal part. Damage caused by terrorist actin on 10th, 16th and 17th June was estimated at P.300,000. Orders were then given to implement the plan directed against the whole network of illegal armed organisations. Action included the arrest of a number of Jewish leaders, some of them members of the Executive of the Jewish Agency, who were known to have been personally implicated in the organisation of acts of violence in Palestine*.

120. On the 22nd July, the campaign conducted by terrorist organisations reached a new climax with an explosion which wrecked a wing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, containing the offices of the government Secretariat as well as part of military headquarters, and killed 86 public servants, Arab, Jewish and British, as well as five members of the public. Later terrorist activities have included the kidnapping of a British judge and of British officers, sabotage of the railway system and of oil installations at Haifa, and the blowing up of a British community as threatened, non-essential British civilians and military families were evacuated from Palestine and the remaining members of the British community were concentrated in security zones at the beginning of February, 1947. In the same month “statutory martial law” was imposed for a limited period on an area of the Lydda district comprising Tel Aviv (with the Jewish quarters of Jaffa), Ramat Gan, Benei Braq and Petah Tiqva, as well as on an area of Jerusalem predominantly inhabited to Jews."

A AC.14 8 of 2 October 1947

Eh, Monte, the rest of us are having a serious discussion with current reality. Can you handle that?

Your definition of reality is Hasbara propaganda. My reality relies on fact.

Your "reaity" lies in a sealed box with you in it.

Of course to you, that have only Zionist propaganda to spout, would say that.

While you only have NAZI propaganda, islamonazi propaganda and Catholic brainwashing

What kind of Catholic supports Middle East Muslim terrorists killing other Catholics as well as Protestants, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.?