Seek Peace, Pursue Justice in Israel-Palestine

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore; et al,[/I]

In a thousand years from now, humanity will still tell stories and pass on the legend of an epic conflict between the forces of good and evil. And among them will be the tale of a time when, for more than a century, the small nation of Israel fought and defended their National Home on ancient ground. --- They will chronicle for posterity, a time when so few stood against so many, surrounded --- many times outnumbered; of a time when the Star of David , faced with an giant dark cult that spread fear and death across the world; of a time when there arose in the sky a shield of light against the Arab and Persian hoard; forged and tempered in the heat of an iron heart --- in the very shadow and legacy of their majestic ancient brethren.

The six points to the shimmering blue Seal of Solomon will survive; as it has done through out the annals of history. It will Endure as an embossed symbol of strength against those Arab and Persian forces that seek to subjugate humanity and dominate the free will proponents of peace. And in the end, the world will be grateful that at least one small nation stood up to be counted; immortalized forever.

You are grasping at straws. The only time foreigners are mentioned in the right to self determination is that external (foreign) interference is illegal.

The World Zionist Organization is a foreign organization.
The Jewish Agency is a foreign organization.
Britain is a foreign government.
The "state of Israel" was created in Palestine by foreigners.

(COMMENT)

What you perceive as foreign interference is really the League of Nations, the Allied Powers, and the Mandate of Palestine. Together, they implemented a plan to establish a Jewish National Home which culminated in the creation of the State of Israel.

Your interpretation of "external = foreign" is incorrect. If they wanted to say "foreign," they would have said "foreign." The concept of foreign powers (state and non-state actors) was well known. Instead they chose a more overarching term; "external." And the League of Nations, the Allied Powers, and the Mandatory over Palestine are not externals; nor is anything in their power to introduce under derivative authority.

Most Respectfully,
R

If external does not mean foreign, then what does it mean?

The League of Nations did not mention a Jewish state.

The mandate did not mention a Jewish state. (Although Britain set the stage then left)

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore; et al,[/I]

In a thousand years from now, humanity will still tell stories and pass on the legend of an epic conflict between the forces of good and evil. And among them will be the tale of a time when, for more than a century, the small nation of Israel fought and defended their National Home on ancient ground. --- They will chronicle for posterity, a time when so few stood against so many, surrounded --- many times outnumbered; of a time when the Star of David , faced with an giant dark cult that spread fear and death across the world; of a time when there arose in the sky a shield of light against the Arab and Persian hoard; forged and tempered in the heat of an iron heart --- in the very shadow and legacy of their majestic ancient brethren.

The six points to the shimmering blue Seal of Solomon will survive; as it has done through out the annals of history. It will Endure as an embossed symbol of strength against those Arab and Persian forces that seek to subjugate humanity and dominate the free will proponents of peace. And in the end, the world will be grateful that at least one small nation stood up to be counted; immortalized forever.

You are grasping at straws. The only time foreigners are mentioned in the right to self determination is that external (foreign) interference is illegal.

The World Zionist Organization is a foreign organization.
The Jewish Agency is a foreign organization.
Britain is a foreign government.
The "state of Israel" was created in Palestine by foreigners.

(COMMENT)

What you perceive as foreign interference is really the League of Nations, the Allied Powers, and the Mandate of Palestine. Together, they implemented a plan to establish a Jewish National Home which culminated in the creation of the State of Israel.

Your interpretation of "external = foreign" is incorrect. If they wanted to say "foreign," they would have said "foreign." The concept of foreign powers (state and non-state actors) was well known. Instead they chose a more overarching term; "external." And the League of Nations, the Allied Powers, and the Mandatory over Palestine are not externals; nor is anything in their power to introduce under derivative authority.

Most Respectfully,
R

If external does not mean foreign, then what does it mean?

The League of Nations did not mention a Jewish state.

The mandate did not mention a Jewish state. (Although Britain set the stage then left)

I agree with the bold. I sometimes wonder how things would have turned out had the British stayed for a while longer.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore; et al,[/I]

In a thousand years from now, humanity will still tell stories and pass on the legend of an epic conflict between the forces of good and evil. And among them will be the tale of a time when, for more than a century, the small nation of Israel fought and defended their National Home on ancient ground. --- They will chronicle for posterity, a time when so few stood against so many, surrounded --- many times outnumbered; of a time when the Star of David , faced with an giant dark cult that spread fear and death across the world; of a time when there arose in the sky a shield of light against the Arab and Persian hoard; forged and tempered in the heat of an iron heart --- in the very shadow and legacy of their majestic ancient brethren.

The six points to the shimmering blue Seal of Solomon will survive; as it has done through out the annals of history. It will Endure as an embossed symbol of strength against those Arab and Persian forces that seek to subjugate humanity and dominate the free will proponents of peace. And in the end, the world will be grateful that at least one small nation stood up to be counted; immortalized forever.


(COMMENT)

What you perceive as foreign interference is really the League of Nations, the Allied Powers, and the Mandate of Palestine. Together, they implemented a plan to establish a Jewish National Home which culminated in the creation of the State of Israel.

Your interpretation of "external = foreign" is incorrect. If they wanted to say "foreign," they would have said "foreign." The concept of foreign powers (state and non-state actors) was well known. Instead they chose a more overarching term; "external." And the League of Nations, the Allied Powers, and the Mandatory over Palestine are not externals; nor is anything in their power to introduce under derivative authority.

Most Respectfully,
R

If external does not mean foreign, then what does it mean?

The League of Nations did not mention a Jewish state.

The mandate did not mention a Jewish state. (Although Britain set the stage then left)

I agree with the bold. I sometimes wonder how things would have turned out had the British stayed for a while longer.

Reading the 1939 British white paper might help.

But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of 1939

 

[toastman]

If external does not mean foreign, then what does it mean?

The League of Nations did not mention a Jewish state.

The mandate did not mention a Jewish state. (Although Britain set the stage then left)

I agree with the bold. I sometimes wonder how things would have turned out had the British stayed for a while longer.

Reading the 1939 British white paper might help.

But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of 1939

What do you think would have happened had the British remained in Mandatory Palestine ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

I agree with the bold. I sometimes wonder how things would have turned out had the British stayed for a while longer.

Reading the 1939 British white paper might help.

But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of 1939

What do you think would have happened had the British remained in Mandatory Palestine ?

I think it could have gotten better.

 

[toastman]

Reading the 1939 British white paper might help.

What do you think would have happened had the British remained in Mandatory Palestine ?

I think it could have gotten better.

a rare instance of agreement

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore; et al,

Yes, now you ask the right questions.

If external does not mean foreign, then what does it mean?

The League of Nations did not mention a Jewish state.

The mandate did not mention a Jewish state. (Although Britain set the stage then left)

I agree with the bold. I sometimes wonder how things would have turned out had the British stayed for a while longer.

(ANSWERs)

• If external does not mean foreign, then what does it mean?
  
  
  In the case of the "external" the meaning is all parties not directly involved with the execution of Article 22 of the Covenant, Articles 94-97 of the Treaty, or at the invitation of the Mandatory.​
• The League of Nations did not mention a Jewish state.
  
  
  True. The Covenant indicates Mandates will be establish rendering administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. Kuwait, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Jordan were all judged as being able to stand alone. The means to the end that created statehood for them all.​
• The mandate did not mention a Jewish state.
  
  
  True, the mandatory uses the language: "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." The solution to this mandate was to establish a state once the people were able to stand-alone. This was the exact same solution used in the creation of the other 4 Arab nations under mandate or protection.
  
  It matches the Empire language and intent of Article 95 of the Treaty; "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."​

The intent, to establish a Jewish National Home, was the goal. But the solution to how that goal would be accomplished was never limited by Treaty, by Covenant, or by Mandate. In the case of Israel 'vs' Arab, the General Assembly accepted the Partition as the most reasonable solution; 87% of the Palestine Mandate to the Arabs and 12% to the Jewish.

The Palestinian High Commission, and the Arab League rejected the offer after Jordan was created (77%). The Israelis accepted. The fight has been on ever since. Even today, Hamas wants it all; no negotiation. The people of Gaza and the West Bank want to continue the conflict until Israel falls. The Palestinians do not want to pursue peaceful solutions and do not want to follow the IHL Principles.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore; et al,

Yes, now you ask the right questions.

If external does not mean foreign, then what does it mean?

The League of Nations did not mention a Jewish state.

The mandate did not mention a Jewish state. (Although Britain set the stage then left)

I agree with the bold. I sometimes wonder how things would have turned out had the British stayed for a while longer.

(ANSWERs)

• If external does not mean foreign, then what does it mean?
  
  
  In the case of the "external" the meaning is all parties not directly involved with the execution of Article 22 of the Covenant, Articles 94-97 of the Treaty, or at the invitation of the Mandatory.​
• The League of Nations did not mention a Jewish state.
  
  
  True. The Covenant indicates Mandates will be establish rendering administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. Kuwait, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Jordan were all judged as being able to stand alone. The means to the end that created statehood for them all.​
• The mandate did not mention a Jewish state.
  
  
  True, the mandatory uses the language: "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." The solution to this mandate was to establish a state once the people were able to stand-alone. This was the exact same solution used in the creation of the other 4 Arab nations under mandate or protection.
  
  It matches the Empire language and intent of Article 95 of the Treaty; "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."​

The intent, to establish a Jewish National Home, was the goal. But the solution to how that goal would be accomplished was never limited by Treaty, by Covenant, or by Mandate. In the case of Israel 'vs' Arab, the General Assembly accepted the Partition as the most reasonable solution; 87% of the Palestine Mandate to the Arabs and 12% to the Jewish.

The Palestinian High Commission, and the Arab League rejected the offer after Jordan was created (77%). The Israelis accepted. The fight has been on ever since. Even today, Hamas wants it all; no negotiation. The people of Gaza and the West Bank want to continue the conflict until Israel falls. The Palestinians do not want to pursue peaceful solutions and do not want to follow the IHL Principles.

Most Respectfully,
R

The treaty did not mention a Jewish state.

The League of Nations Covenant called for independent states based on the wishes of the people. The wishes of the people opposed a Jewish state.

The mandate was to allow Jewish immigration, assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship, and form a government shared by all the people. There was not to be a Jewish state.

Britain was a complete failure. It left Palestine in the middle of a war it instigated without accomplishing any of its goals.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore; et al,

Yes, now you ask the right questions.

I agree with the bold. I sometimes wonder how things would have turned out had the British stayed for a while longer.

(ANSWERs)

• If external does not mean foreign, then what does it mean?
  
  
  In the case of the "external" the meaning is all parties not directly involved with the execution of Article 22 of the Covenant, Articles 94-97 of the Treaty, or at the invitation of the Mandatory.​
• The League of Nations did not mention a Jewish state.
  
  
  True. The Covenant indicates Mandates will be establish rendering administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. Kuwait, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Jordan were all judged as being able to stand alone. The means to the end that created statehood for them all.​
• The mandate did not mention a Jewish state.
  
  
  True, the mandatory uses the language: "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." The solution to this mandate was to establish a state once the people were able to stand-alone. This was the exact same solution used in the creation of the other 4 Arab nations under mandate or protection.
  
  It matches the Empire language and intent of Article 95 of the Treaty; "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."​

The intent, to establish a Jewish National Home, was the goal. But the solution to how that goal would be accomplished was never limited by Treaty, by Covenant, or by Mandate. In the case of Israel 'vs' Arab, the General Assembly accepted the Partition as the most reasonable solution; 87% of the Palestine Mandate to the Arabs and 12% to the Jewish.

The Palestinian High Commission, and the Arab League rejected the offer after Jordan was created (77%). The Israelis accepted. The fight has been on ever since. Even today, Hamas wants it all; no negotiation. The people of Gaza and the West Bank want to continue the conflict until Israel falls. The Palestinians do not want to pursue peaceful solutions and do not want to follow the IHL Principles.

Most Respectfully,
R

The treaty did not mention a Jewish state.

The League of Nations Covenant called for independent states based on the wishes of the people. The wishes of the people opposed a Jewish state.

The mandate was to allow Jewish immigration, assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship, and form a government shared by all the people. There was not to be a Jewish state.

Britain was a complete failure. It left Palestine in the middle of a war it instigated without accomplishing any of its goals.

(COMMENT)

You are correct, the treaty called for a Jewish National Home. Making a Jewish State was a means to that end.

Wrong! The covenant did not call for independent states based on the wishes of the people. It called on the Allied Powers to consider the selection of a Mandatory based on the wishes of the people.

Palestinian Citizenship was a program. But not a roadblock to statehood. Immigration was encourage for all those wishing to build a Jewish National Home.

Nothing in the Treaty, the Covenant, or the Mandate prohibited the creation of a state.

The Palestinian contributed more to the failure and destabilization of regional security and prosperity than any other single failure. The UK may not have accomplished very goal and objective that it intended. However, the Palestinian and the other Arab accomplices directly contributed to that failure then, and continue that failed process even now. The Palestinian has no historical record of ever making a contribution to the promotion of peace and prosperity in the region. Their behaviors have always been counterproductive. They were never in a position to stand alone. Even today, they are totally dependent on the handout of other nations.

No, the self victimization perpetuated by the Palestinian is a blight and disgrace on the history of humanity. While they may not be the worst self corrupting culture to grace the Earth, they rank pretty high on the list of dysfunctional people.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,

Of course, the British White Paper of 1939, reflecting the opinion of the day, as did the Churchill White Paper of 1922 before it, was NOT the last word from the Mandatory.

(PREFACE)

I think one of the most interesting, and seldom discussed papers, was that of the Mandatory (A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947) which brought everything together from the Mandatory's perspective, and why some people think the UK failed in their obligations. It is a very long paper. It is ugly. It shows the black heart of both side and the dilemma faced by the Mandatory. It shows the concern that neither the Jew nor the Arab rule solely over Palestine. It is over 150 paragraphs and it is a lot to take-in on first exposure.

If you explore it, take a deep breath. It shows the evolution of the thinking that lead to the Partition Plan. It takes some time to go through, but it is an essential if you are to gain a perspective on how all the various concepts come together. And it shows a unique insight into the very questions that our friend P F Tinmore presents.

Anyone that has spent a career in the Intelligence Field or the Foreign Service (Diplomacy Arena) might find parts of it --- heartbreaking.

I open with, there are no clean hands in this mess. Just various shades of dirty.

If external does not mean foreign, then what does it mean?

The League of Nations did not mention a Jewish state.

The mandate did not mention a Jewish state. (Although Britain set the stage then left)

I agree with the bold. I sometimes wonder how things would have turned out had the British stayed for a while longer.

Reading the 1939 British white paper might help.

But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of 1939

(REFERENCE)

• The Political History of Palestine under British Administration ----- Memorandum by His Britannic Majesty's Government presented in 1947 to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, Published at Jerusalem, 1947.
  • LINK ---> A/AC.14/8 of 2 October 1947

(COMMENT)

Early on in the process, it was recognized that at various times in the evolution of the situation on the ground, differing view and interpretations of facts dominated the day; depending on the perspective. One important view, still held by some today, is articulated in this passage:

18. Replying to these observations, the Colonial Officer pointed out that paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the League Covenant had been interpreted by the Principal Allied Powers in the unratified Treaty of Sevres, where Syria and Iraq, but not Palestine, were explicitly said to have been “provisionally recognised” as independent States.

“There is no question,” the Colonial Officer continued, “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…..If your Delegation really represents the present attitude of the majority of the Arab population of Palestine, and Mr. Churchill (then Colonial Secretary) 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 ell 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.”​

19. This passage in the letter of the colonial Office was characterised by the Arab Delegation as

“the strongest proof that the Jewish National Home undertaking is the cause of depriving us of our natural right of establishing an independent government the same as Mesopotamia and the Hedjaz.”
​

They also concluded from it that

“self-government will be granted as soon as the Jewish people in Palestine are sufficiently able through numbers and powers to benefit to the full by self-government, and not before.”​

By 1937, leading up to the White Paper of 1939, the interpretation of events on the ground were yet moving the Mandate obligation:

86. The Commission gave careful consideration to the grievances of both Arabs and Jews against the mandatory Administration, and reached the conclusion that the principal concession demanded by each people could not legitimately be granted. Thus the commission wrote as follows on the Arab demand for self-government;-

“We are confronted with a paradoxical situation. The Arabs of Palestine, it has been admitted, are as fit to govern themselves as any organized and educated community in Europe or elsewhere. Yet, associated as they are under the Mandate, self-government is impracticable for both peoples. Nowhere, indeed, in all the fields in which the Mandatory operates is the deadlock so complete as in this last field. Nowhere is it more manifest that the Mandate cannot be fully and honourably implemented unless by some means or other the national antagonism between Arab and Jew can be composed. But it is the Mandate that created that antagonism and keeps it alive; and, as long as the Mandate exists, we cannot honestly hold out the expectation that either Arabs or Jews will be able to set aside their national hopes or fears and sink their differences in the common service of Palestine. The being so, real “self-governing institutions” cannot be developed nor can the Mandate ever terminate, without violating its obligations, general or specific. For at any given time there must be either an Arab or a Jewish majority in Palestine, and the government of an independent Palestine, freed from the Mandate, would have to be either an Arab or a Jewish government. In the latter event-assuming, we repeat, that the miracle of reconciliation has not happened and that politics are still conducted on lines of race the general obligation implicit in all Mandates that the people entrusted to Mandatory administration are to be enabled in course of time to “stand by themselves’ would not have fulfilled. In the other event, the obligation in Article 2 “for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home” would not have been discharged.”

At the same time the commission, so far from endorsing the Zionist view that immigrants should be more freely admitted, reached the conclusion that “political, social psychological considerations”, as well as economic absorptive capacity, should be taken into account when the rate of immigration was determined. They accordingly recommended that, if the Mandate was to continue, immigration should be confined within a maximum figure (or as they termed it, “a political high level&#8221 of 12,000 annually during the succeeding five years.​

The impossible dilemma was taking shape for a no win situation. And the Mandatory, unable to change the course of events, was hoping in desperation, that time would heal the wounds and seal the breach between the Arab and Jewish community. Privately, no one really believed that would happen, but to publicly support that view was politically impractical. And to do so, would leave the Mandatory with no escape that would not lead to conflict as the inevitable outcome. And no one want to admit to that.

88. In these circumstances the maintenance of the Mandate would mean the indefinite continuance of unrest and disturbance. The Commission therefore recommended that His Majesty’s Government should take steps to terminate the Mandate and to partition the country in such a way as to create an independent Jewish State in the north and west, and to incorporate most of the remaining territory in Trans-Jordan.

“Manifestly”, the Commission wrote, “the problem cannot be solved by giving either the Arabs or the Jews all they want. The answer to the question ‘which of them in the end will govern Palestine?’ must surely be ‘Neither.’ We do not think that any fair-minded statesman would suppose, now that the hope of harmony between the races has proved untenable, that Britain ought either to hand over to Arab rule 400,000 Jews, whose entry into Palestine has been for the most part facilitated by the British Government and approved by the League of Nations; or that, if the Jews should become a majority, a million or so of Arabs should be handed over to their rule. But, while neither race can justly rule all Palestine, we see no reason why, if it were practicable, each race should not rule part of it.”​

This set the stage for the White Paper that P F Tinmore cites, which is not the end statement, still containing latent pitfalls:

102. The statement of policy issued by His Majesty’s government in May 1939, was intended to put an end to uncertainty as to the objectives of their policy in Palestine, and to prepare the way for the termination of the Mandate. The statement opened with a clear definition of the attitude of His Majesty’s government towards the maximum claims of both Arabs and Jews. Thus, after quoting the interpretation of the Balfour Declaration contained in the White Paper of 1922, they “now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State.”

At the same time they maintained their rejection of the Arab contention that they were pledged, by undertakings given during the war of 1914-18, to grant independence to the Arab population of Palestine:-

“They cannot agree that the McMahon correspondence forms a just basis for the claim that Palestine should be converted into an Arab State.”​

103. The objective of His Majesty’s Government was then stated to be

“the establishment within ten years of an independent Palestine State….in which Arabs and Jews share in government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded.”​

110. The Mandatory’s new statement of policy was examined by the Permanent Mandates Commission at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939. the commission reported that:

“the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”​

They went on to consider whether the Mandate was open to a new interpretation with which the White Paper would not be at variance. Four of the seven members

“did not feel able to state that the policy of the White Paper was in conformity with the Mandate, any contrary conclusion appearing to them to be ruled out by the very terms of the Mandate and by the fundamental intentions of its authors.”​

As you can see, and I admit, it was a close call. Practically speaking, half the committee agreed that the implied intent was to form a state, while the other half opposed that interpretation as a implied promise to the Jewish people. In any event, they all realized that there was a problem of interpreting the intent of the original Allied Powers that wrote the Mandate. And that interpretational difference still lingers today.

Most heartbreaking is the finale:

154. This decision was announced to the House of Commons by the Foreign Secretary on the 18th February 1947. In the course of his speech he said:-

“His Majesty’s Government have …been faced with an irreconcilable conflict of principles. There are in Palestine about 1,200,000 Arabs and 600,000 Jews. For the Jews the essential point of principle is the creation of sovereign Jewish State. For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine. The discussions of the last moth have quite clearly shown that there is no prospect of resolving this conflict by any settlement negotiated between the parties. But if the conflict has to be resolved by an arbitrary decision, that is not a decision which His Majesty'’ Government are empowered, as Mandatory, to take. His Majesty’s government have of themselves no power, under the terms of the Mandate, to award the country either to the Arabs or to the Jews, or even to partition it between them.

It is in these circumstances that we have decided that we are unable to accept the scheme put forward either by the Arabs or by the Jews, or to impose ourselves a solution or our own. We have, therefore, reached the conclusion that the only course now open to us is to submit the problem to the judgement of the United Nations. We intend to place before them an historical account of the way in which His majesty’s government have discharged their trust in Palestine over the last twenty-five years. We shall explain that the Mandate has proved to be unworkable in practice, and that the obligations undertaken to the two communities in Palestine have been shown to be irreconcilable. We shall describe the various proposals which have been put forward for dealing with the situation, namely, the Arab Plan, the Zionist’s aspirations, so far as we have been able to ascertain them, the proposals of the Anglo-American committee and the various proposals which we ourselves have put forward. We shall then ask the United Nations to consider our report, and to recommend a settlement of the problem. We do not intend ourselves to recommend any particular solution.”​

That is really the decision to leave and the reason the General Assembly furthered Resolution 181(II).

While the White Paper is one of the most heavily cited documents in the overall discussion, it did not truly represent the most accurate view. The dilemma was unfolding and the Mandatory could see the trap closing on them. The "no win" situation was upon them.

Then, as today, the Jews and the Arabs are no closer to resolving their differences. Then as today, the Arab (Palestinian) is just as disadvantaged in terms of the ability to sustain self-governing institutions.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore; et al,

Yes, now you ask the right questions.


(ANSWERs)

• If external does not mean foreign, then what does it mean?
  
  
  In the case of the "external" the meaning is all parties not directly involved with the execution of Article 22 of the Covenant, Articles 94-97 of the Treaty, or at the invitation of the Mandatory.​
• The League of Nations did not mention a Jewish state.
  
  
  True. The Covenant indicates Mandates will be establish rendering administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. Kuwait, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Jordan were all judged as being able to stand alone. The means to the end that created statehood for them all.​
• The mandate did not mention a Jewish state.
  
  
  True, the mandatory uses the language: "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." The solution to this mandate was to establish a state once the people were able to stand-alone. This was the exact same solution used in the creation of the other 4 Arab nations under mandate or protection.
  
  It matches the Empire language and intent of Article 95 of the Treaty; "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."​

The intent, to establish a Jewish National Home, was the goal. But the solution to how that goal would be accomplished was never limited by Treaty, by Covenant, or by Mandate. In the case of Israel 'vs' Arab, the General Assembly accepted the Partition as the most reasonable solution; 87% of the Palestine Mandate to the Arabs and 12% to the Jewish.

The Palestinian High Commission, and the Arab League rejected the offer after Jordan was created (77%). The Israelis accepted. The fight has been on ever since. Even today, Hamas wants it all; no negotiation. The people of Gaza and the West Bank want to continue the conflict until Israel falls. The Palestinians do not want to pursue peaceful solutions and do not want to follow the IHL Principles.

Most Respectfully,
R

The treaty did not mention a Jewish state.

The League of Nations Covenant called for independent states based on the wishes of the people. The wishes of the people opposed a Jewish state.

The mandate was to allow Jewish immigration, assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship, and form a government shared by all the people. There was not to be a Jewish state.

Britain was a complete failure. It left Palestine in the middle of a war it instigated without accomplishing any of its goals.

(COMMENT)

You are correct, the treaty called for a Jewish National Home. Making a Jewish State was a means to that end.

Funny that nobody mentioned that.

Wrong! The covenant did not call for independent states based on the wishes of the people. It called on the Allied Powers to consider the selection of a Mandatory based on the wishes of the people.

It is true that the selection of a Mandatory was based on the wishes of the people. The people wished for the US but got ******* Britain anyway and it was downhill from there.

The LoN Covenant mentioned the people, the natives, and the indigenous as the beneficiaries of the mandates. It did not mention foreigners out of Europe.

Palestinian Citizenship was a program. But not a roadblock to statehood. Immigration was encourage for all those wishing to build a Jewish National Home.

Britain screwed the citizenship program big time. In the long run, however, it was irrelevant.

Nothing in the Treaty, the Covenant, or the Mandate prohibited the creation of a state.

A Jewish state was only mentioned by Britain in its 1939 white paper where it attempted to clarify the goal of the mandate. It said that a Jewish state was not to be imposed on Palestine against the wishes of the people.

The Palestinian contributed more to the failure and destabilization of regional security and prosperity than any other single failure. The UK may not have accomplished very goal and objective that it intended. However, the Palestinian and the other Arab accomplices directly contributed to that failure then, and continue that failed process even now. The Palestinian has no historical record of ever making a contribution to the promotion of peace and prosperity in the region. Their behaviors have always been counterproductive. They were never in a position to stand alone. Even today, they are totally dependent on the handout of other nations.

No, the self victimization perpetuated by the Palestinian is a blight and disgrace on the history of humanity. While they may not be the worst self corrupting culture to grace the Earth, they rank pretty high on the list of dysfunctional people.

The rest of your post looks like it was copied out of Israel's propaganda book.

XXXXXXX

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, toastman, et al,

Of course, the British White Paper of 1939, reflecting the opinion of the day, as did the Churchill White Paper of 1922 before it, was NOT the last word from the Mandatory.

(PREFACE)

I think one of the most interesting, and seldom discussed papers, was that of the Mandatory (A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947) which brought everything together from the Mandatory's perspective, and why some people think the UK failed in their obligations. It is a very long paper. It is ugly. It shows the black heart of both side and the dilemma faced by the Mandatory. It shows the concern that neither the Jew nor the Arab rule solely over Palestine. It is over 150 paragraphs and it is a lot to take-in on first exposure.

If you explore it, take a deep breath. It shows the evolution of the thinking that lead to the Partition Plan. It takes some time to go through, but it is an essential if you are to gain a perspective on how all the various concepts come together. And it shows a unique insight into the very questions that our friend P F Tinmore presents.

Anyone that has spent a career in the Intelligence Field or the Foreign Service (Diplomacy Arena) might find parts of it --- heartbreaking.

I open with, there are no clean hands in this mess. Just various shades of dirty.

I agree with the bold. I sometimes wonder how things would have turned out had the British stayed for a while longer.

Reading the 1939 British white paper might help.

(REFERENCE)

• The Political History of Palestine under British Administration ----- Memorandum by His Britannic Majesty's Government presented in 1947 to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, Published at Jerusalem, 1947.
  • LINK ---> A/AC.14/8 of 2 October 1947

(COMMENT)

Early on in the process, it was recognized that at various times in the evolution of the situation on the ground, differing view and interpretations of facts dominated the day; depending on the perspective. One important view, still held by some today, is articulated in this passage:



By 1937, leading up to the White Paper of 1939, the interpretation of events on the ground were yet moving the Mandate obligation:



The impossible dilemma was taking shape for a no win situation. And the Mandatory, unable to change the course of events, was hoping in desperation, that time would heal the wounds and seal the breach between the Arab and Jewish community. Privately, no one really believed that would happen, but to publicly support that view was politically impractical. And to do so, would leave the Mandatory with no escape that would not lead to conflict as the inevitable outcome. And no one want to admit to that.



This set the stage for the White Paper that P F Tinmore cites, which is not the end statement, still containing latent pitfalls:

102. The statement of policy issued by His Majesty’s government in May 1939, was intended to put an end to uncertainty as to the objectives of their policy in Palestine, and to prepare the way for the termination of the Mandate. The statement opened with a clear definition of the attitude of His Majesty’s government towards the maximum claims of both Arabs and Jews. Thus, after quoting the interpretation of the Balfour Declaration contained in the White Paper of 1922, they “now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State.”

At the same time they maintained their rejection of the Arab contention that they were pledged, by undertakings given during the war of 1914-18, to grant independence to the Arab population of Palestine:-

“They cannot agree that the McMahon correspondence forms a just basis for the claim that Palestine should be converted into an Arab State.”​

103. The objective of His Majesty’s Government was then stated to be

“the establishment within ten years of an independent Palestine State….in which Arabs and Jews share in government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded.”​

110. The Mandatory’s new statement of policy was examined by the Permanent Mandates Commission at their thirty-sixth session in June, 1939. the commission reported that:

“the policy set out in the White Paper was not in accordance with the interpretation which, in agreement with the Mandatory Power and the Council, the Commission had always placed upon the Palestine Mandate.”​

They went on to consider whether the Mandate was open to a new interpretation with which the White Paper would not be at variance. Four of the seven members

“did not feel able to state that the policy of the White Paper was in conformity with the Mandate, any contrary conclusion appearing to them to be ruled out by the very terms of the Mandate and by the fundamental intentions of its authors.”​

As you can see, and I admit, it was a close call. Practically speaking, half the committee agreed that the implied intent was to form a state, while the other half opposed that interpretation as a implied promise to the Jewish people. In any event, they all realized that there was a problem of interpreting the intent of the original Allied Powers that wrote the Mandate. And that interpretational difference still lingers today.

Most heartbreaking is the finale:

154. This decision was announced to the House of Commons by the Foreign Secretary on the 18th February 1947. In the course of his speech he said:-

“His Majesty’s Government have …been faced with an irreconcilable conflict of principles. There are in Palestine about 1,200,000 Arabs and 600,000 Jews. For the Jews the essential point of principle is the creation of sovereign Jewish State. For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine. The discussions of the last moth have quite clearly shown that there is no prospect of resolving this conflict by any settlement negotiated between the parties. But if the conflict has to be resolved by an arbitrary decision, that is not a decision which His Majesty'’ Government are empowered, as Mandatory, to take. His Majesty’s government have of themselves no power, under the terms of the Mandate, to award the country either to the Arabs or to the Jews, or even to partition it between them.

It is in these circumstances that we have decided that we are unable to accept the scheme put forward either by the Arabs or by the Jews, or to impose ourselves a solution or our own. We have, therefore, reached the conclusion that the only course now open to us is to submit the problem to the judgement of the United Nations. We intend to place before them an historical account of the way in which His majesty’s government have discharged their trust in Palestine over the last twenty-five years. We shall explain that the Mandate has proved to be unworkable in practice, and that the obligations undertaken to the two communities in Palestine have been shown to be irreconcilable. We shall describe the various proposals which have been put forward for dealing with the situation, namely, the Arab Plan, the Zionist’s aspirations, so far as we have been able to ascertain them, the proposals of the Anglo-American committee and the various proposals which we ourselves have put forward. We shall then ask the United Nations to consider our report, and to recommend a settlement of the problem. We do not intend ourselves to recommend any particular solution.”​

That is really the decision to leave and the reason the General Assembly furthered Resolution 181(II).

While the White Paper is one of the most heavily cited documents in the overall discussion, it did not truly represent the most accurate view. The dilemma was unfolding and the Mandatory could see the trap closing on them. The "no win" situation was upon them.

Then, as today, the Jews and the Arabs are no closer to resolving their differences. Then as today, the Arab (Palestinian) is just as disadvantaged in terms of the ability to sustain self-governing institutions.

Most Respectfully,
R

Great post, thanks.

If Britain did not cater to the agenda of foreigners there would not have been a hundred year war.

 

[toastman]

The treaty did not mention a Jewish state.

The League of Nations Covenant called for independent states based on the wishes of the people. The wishes of the people opposed a Jewish state.

The mandate was to allow Jewish immigration, assist immigrant Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship, and form a government shared by all the people. There was not to be a Jewish state.

Britain was a complete failure. It left Palestine in the middle of a war it instigated without accomplishing any of its goals.

(COMMENT)

You are correct, the treaty called for a Jewish National Home. Making a Jewish State was a means to that end.

Funny that nobody mentioned that.



It is true that the selection of a Mandatory was based on the wishes of the people. The people wished for the US but got ******* Britain anyway and it was downhill from there.

The LoN Covenant mentioned the people, the natives, and the indigenous as the beneficiaries of the mandates. It did not mention foreigners out of Europe.



Britain screwed the citizenship program big time. In the long run, however, it was irrelevant.



A Jewish state was only mentioned by Britain in its 1939 white paper where it attempted to clarify the goal of the mandate. It said that a Jewish state was not to be imposed on Palestine against the wishes of the people.

The Palestinian contributed more to the failure and destabilization of regional security and prosperity than any other single failure. The UK may not have accomplished very goal and objective that it intended. However, the Palestinian and the other Arab accomplices directly contributed to that failure then, and continue that failed process even now. The Palestinian has no historical record of ever making a contribution to the promotion of peace and prosperity in the region. Their behaviors have always been counterproductive. They were never in a position to stand alone. Even today, they are totally dependent on the handout of other nations.

No, the self victimization perpetuated by the Palestinian is a blight and disgrace on the history of humanity. While they may not be the worst self corrupting culture to grace the Earth, they rank pretty high on the list of dysfunctional people.

The rest of your post looks like it was copied out of Israel's propaganda book.

You should be ashamed of yourself for pimping that crap.

Most Respectfully,
R

Don't you find it funny that any truthful commdent regarding the Palestinians, you call propaganda?

 

[Hossfly]

(COMMENT)

You are correct, the treaty called for a Jewish National Home. Making a Jewish State was a means to that end.

Funny that nobody mentioned that.



It is true that the selection of a Mandatory was based on the wishes of the people. The people wished for the US but got ******* Britain anyway and it was downhill from there.

The LoN Covenant mentioned the people, the natives, and the indigenous as the beneficiaries of the mandates. It did not mention foreigners out of Europe.



Britain screwed the citizenship program big time. In the long run, however, it was irrelevant.



A Jewish state was only mentioned by Britain in its 1939 white paper where it attempted to clarify the goal of the mandate. It said that a Jewish state was not to be imposed on Palestine against the wishes of the people.



The rest of your post looks like it was copied out of Israel's propaganda book.

You should be ashamed of yourself for pimping that crap.

Most Respectfully,
R

Don't you find it funny that any truthful commdent regarding the Palestinians, you call propaganda?

Climbing Mt. Tinmore is a prodigious task but Rocco is making progress. Tinmore has accused him of copying Israeli propaganda. Soon he'll be calling Rocco a liar.

 

[sealadaigh]

(COMMENT)

You are correct, the treaty called for a Jewish National Home. Making a Jewish State was a means to that end.

Funny that nobody mentioned that.



It is true that the selection of a Mandatory was based on the wishes of the people. The people wished for the US but got ******* Britain anyway and it was downhill from there.

The LoN Covenant mentioned the people, the natives, and the indigenous as the beneficiaries of the mandates. It did not mention foreigners out of Europe.



Britain screwed the citizenship program big time. In the long run, however, it was irrelevant.



A Jewish state was only mentioned by Britain in its 1939 white paper where it attempted to clarify the goal of the mandate. It said that a Jewish state was not to be imposed on Palestine against the wishes of the people.



The rest of your post looks like it was copied out of Israel's propaganda book.

You should be ashamed of yourself for pimping that crap.

Most Respectfully,
R

Don't you find it funny that any truthful commdent regarding the Palestinians, you call propaganda?

a lot of propaganda is based upon partial truths or carefully selective truths.

 

[sealadaigh]

Funny that nobody mentioned that.



It is true that the selection of a Mandatory was based on the wishes of the people. The people wished for the US but got ******* Britain anyway and it was downhill from there.

The LoN Covenant mentioned the people, the natives, and the indigenous as the beneficiaries of the mandates. It did not mention foreigners out of Europe.



Britain screwed the citizenship program big time. In the long run, however, it was irrelevant.



A Jewish state was only mentioned by Britain in its 1939 white paper where it attempted to clarify the goal of the mandate. It said that a Jewish state was not to be imposed on Palestine against the wishes of the people.



The rest of your post looks like it was copied out of Israel's propaganda book.

You should be ashamed of yourself for pimping that crap.

Don't you find it funny that any truthful commdent regarding the Palestinians, you call propaganda?

Climbing Mt. Tinmore is a prodigious task but Rocco is making progress. Tinmore has accused him of copying Israeli propaganda. Soon he'll be calling Rocco a liar.

i've never noticed tinmore calling people names.

 

[Hossfly]

Don't you find it funny that any truthful commdent regarding the Palestinians, you call propaganda?

Climbing Mt. Tinmore is a prodigious task but Rocco is making progress. Tinmore has accused him of copying Israeli propaganda. Soon he'll be calling Rocco a liar.

i've never noticed tinmore calling people names.

Generally Tinmore is civil but he has gone ballistic in the past.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is strictly my take on the issue of "foreigners" and the impact it should have (which differs from the impact it does have).

Great post, thanks.

If Britain did not cater to the agenda of foreigners there would not have been a hundred year war.

(COMMENT)

The issue of Jewish Immigration being portrayed as a "Foreign Invasion" is simply a smart approach, using savvy language, to make it appear it has some adverse significance. It eloquently puts the pro-Jewish position on the defensive, and ever so subtlety impresses the adverse suggestion that Jewish Immigration was a "Bad Thing" (simply because someone told us it was).

(PREFACE)

For about 2500 years, since the time of Nebuchadnezzar (587 BCE, Babylonian) ransacked Jerusalem and destroyed the First Temple, the Jewish People have been on a trek, first exiled the to Babylon (not a 100 miles southwest of Baghdad); then again, about 2100 years ago when the revolt against Hadrian was lost, Judea was renamed, and the great preponderance of Jewish People were again outcast. The word that has come into use for it was "diaspora." This cycle was to play itself over and over again whether we talk about the dispersal made necessary by the impact of the Spanish Inquisition 15th Century, or the forced migration during the period of the Reformation. In modern times, the wholesale persecution of the Jews across Europe during WWII (sometimes referred to as the Holocaust) with the virulent rise in anti-Semitism gave the world leadership and intelligencia pause for considered thought. The intellectual conclusion, especially in the Western World, was that the Jewish culture was very much worth saving, preserving, and protecting from further decimation. Even in some quarters of the Jewish community that had survived, arose the mentality of "never again." And there came into theory the concept of a Jewish Homeland; which evolved into a return to their roots; the ancient Israel, Judea, the land renamed by the Roman Emperor Hadrian as "Palestine" (a variant of Philistine).

(OPINION) The Convergence of Ideas

The world leadership, intelligencia, and ruling elite, along with mid-19th Century thinkers and philosophers, began to slowly coalesce with their ideas gradually seeking an intersection, on not only a common theme, but a common solution.

It may have never been the original intention for the issue of Jewish Immigration (whatever timeframe) to have been of any importance. The goal was to create an environment that would save, perserve and protect the Jewish Culture and its People for all time - a place of refuge, safety and shelter; free of the injustices inflicted upon them for more than a millenium. To replant them in the most logical place on Earth, their point of origin.

I don't think that the world leadership, intelligencia, ruling elite, 19th Century thinkers and philosophers gave much thought to the medieval Arab (of the Mamluk/Ottoman linage) inhabitants that permeated the region. The objective was clear, and a just cause. I think the general thought that prevailed was that the medieval indigenous population would either grasp and enjoin with the concept, or not understand and justification would be a futile waste. It would be beyond their comprehension and thus well beyond their benevolence of mind and subculture.

The problem that has arose, is that the ensuing conflict, the unreconcilable differences that have evolved, and the death of the original leadership, intelligencia, ruling elite, 19th Century thinkers, and philosophers, the understanding behind the purpose was lost. Now it is merely all about the struggle.

The argument over foreigners, is really about the argument that they were suppose to be gathering the Jews from all over the world. Them being foreigners was never an issue; but the intent.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Muskie]

Hey guys. I just finished this entire thread, and I must say this P.F Tinmore character is really full of himself ! What the story with him? Why does he deny all these facts when they are presented to him right in front of his face?? He must be another Israeli hater

 

[RoccoR]

Muskie, et al,

I'd would give P F Tinmore the benefit of the doubt.

Hey guys. I just finished this entire thread, and I must say this P.F Tinmore character is really full of himself ! What the story with him? Why does he deny all these facts when they are presented to him right in front of his face?? He must be another Israeli hater

(COMMENT)

He is firmly rooted in the conviction that a wrong was perpetrated upon the Palestinian. And, there is no doubt that the Israelis could have been better Occupation Administrators. There are some very valid points that P F Tinmore (Paul) has raised. Don't count him short. He is one of these:

For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine.

He would be a good man to have on your side, and a pain-in the-ass opponent to have on your tail.

Most Respectfully,
R