Should Israel have been created?

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore; et al,

Again and Again, this is a place where we differ in perspective.

Remember, mandates owned no territory. They were assigned to assist a country. In this case that country was Palestine.

Indeed it was.

Interesting that it was called the Palestine Mandate.

(COMMENT)

So much wrong here.

The region, we call today Palestine, was a portion of the Ottoman Empire. Turkey, the successor state to the Ottoman Empire, forfeited the rights of sovereignty over that land (as well as several others). They were not countries. In the case of Palestine, not only was it not a country, but the lands and meaning of Palestine was undefined.

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the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 shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

SOURCE: Sevres Treaty: Part III

In 1920, there wasn't even a recognized outline to Palestine. That was made by the Allied Powers, under the terms of the Treaty. The Allied Powers determined what they would call "Palestine" and made a Mandate through the LoN Process.

Make no mistake! There was no such country as Palestine. It is a made-up territory with a ancient name.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are grasping at straws.

in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people

What did that mean?

 

[irosie91]

P F Tinmore; et al,

Again and Again, this is a place where we differ in perspective.

Remember, mandates owned no territory. They were assigned to assist a country. In this case that country was Palestine.

Indeed it was.

Interesting that it was called the Palestine Mandate.

(COMMENT)

So much wrong here.

The region, we call today Palestine, was a portion of the Ottoman Empire. Turkey, the successor state to the Ottoman Empire, forfeited the rights of sovereignty over that land (as well as several others). They were not countries. In the case of Palestine, not only was it not a country, but the lands and meaning of Palestine was undefined.

In 1920, there wasn't even a recognized outline to Palestine. That was made by the Allied Powers, under the terms of the Treaty. The Allied Powers determined what they would call "Palestine" and made a Mandate through the LoN Process.

Make no mistake! There was no such country as Palestine. It is a made-up territory with a
ancient name.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are grasping at straws.

in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people

What did that mean?

It means jews seeking refuge from christian and islamic oppression could migrate
to the land that was approximately called "palestine" since the romans sacked
Israel/judea and rendered its land part of the "HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE"
Historically ---since the time of the establishement of the "HOLY ROMAN
EMPIRE" and the invasion of "PALESTINE" by arabs ---jews had continued
to maintain both a presence in and an IDEOLOGY which included "palestine"
as a national homeland.....in the early part of the 19th century---
the OTTOMANS who ruled the OTTOMAN CALIPHATE----mitigated
shariah law in "palestine" and made it legal for jews to buy land there--
which jews did-----as a kind of program for preparation for "return" to
that land as a national homeland for jews. This situation became
RECOGNIZED by several countries NOW YOU GOT IT?

Since muslims consider any land EVER INVADED BY MUSLIMS---
to be "MUSLIM LAND FOREVER"----many were alarmed----it was
something like the "TRAGEDY OF ANDALUSIA" and the
DISMANTLING OF THE MOGHUL EMPIRE <gasp>

simple history Tinnie where was your mind in the eighth grade?

 

[sealadaigh]

P F Tinmore; et al,

Again and Again, this is a place where we differ in perspective.

Remember, mandates owned no territory. They were assigned to assist a country. In this case that country was Palestine.

Indeed it was.

Interesting that it was called the Palestine Mandate.

(COMMENT)

So much wrong here.

The region, we call today Palestine, was a portion of the Ottoman Empire. Turkey, the successor state to the Ottoman Empire, forfeited the rights of sovereignty over that land (as well as several others). They were not countries. In the case of Palestine, not only was it not a country, but the lands and meaning of Palestine was undefined.



In 1920, there wasn't even a recognized outline to Palestine. That was made by the Allied Powers, under the terms of the Treaty. The Allied Powers determined what they would call "Palestine" and made a Mandate through the LoN Process.

Make no mistake! There was no such country as Palestine. It is a made-up territory with a ancient name.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are grasping at straws.

in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people

What did that mean?

what it didn't mean, i think, is more important than what it did mean.

a "national home" means neither a "nation" nor a "state".

you may have to be irish to understand what the british mean.

 

[irosie91]

"a NATIONAL HOME means neither a nation or a state"

<<<< the most idiotic statement of the century

 

[georgephillip]

What the Irish understand...

"Ireland was where the English invented the tactic of divide and conquer, and where the devastating effectiveness of using foreign settlers to drive a wedge between the colonial rulers and the colonized made it a template for worldwide imperial rule."

In 1609 an English King evicted thousands of Catholics from northern Ireland and replaced them with 20,000 Protestants. Over four hundred years later, the first British governor of Jerusalem noted the similarities in Palestine:

"Sir Ronald Storrs, the first Governor of Jerusalem, certainly had no illusions about what a &#8220;Jewish homeland&#8221; in Palestine meant for the British Empire: 'It will form for England,' he said, 'a little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism.'&#8221;

Storr's insight came at the time the Royal Navy was switching from coal to oil to power its fleets.

Divide and Conquer as Imperial Rules | FPIF

 

[P F Tinmore]

"a NATIONAL HOME means neither a nation or a state"

<<<< the most idiotic statement of the century

Not at all. Read the 1939 British white paper.

 

[sealadaigh]

"a NATIONAL HOME means neither a nation or a state"

<<<< the most idiotic statement of the century

it beomes increasingly obvious to me that you do not even read your own posts before you hit "submit reply".

 

[50_RiaL]

I give daily thanks that there's an Israel . . . lest we have 58 muslim nations & 22 arab states that'd give us nothin' but misery & grief!

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Paul is not wrong here. There is no equivocation between the phrase "Jewish National Home" and "Jewish State." While they are not equal --- and meanings are not the same, it does not preclude a "Jewish State." It is diplomatic-ese that statehood was not an inevitability.

The concept of a "Jewish State" is but one way to achieve the goal of a "Jewish National Homeland."

"a NATIONAL HOME means neither a nation or a state"

<<<< the most idiotic statement of the century

Not at all. Read the 1939 British white paper.

(COMMENT)

While the intent of the national authors is a bit ambiguous, interpretation of the thought by the audience is as at least important as the intent (no matter what the original intent was).

The Balfour Declaration (1917), on the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, was subsequently amplified twice by the UK.

• British White Paper (BWP#1) of June 1922 on Palestine
  • The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922
  • http://www.hartzman.com/Israel/Mandate Era/Churchill White Paper - 1922.pdf
• British White Paper (BWP#2) of 1939 on Palestine
  • The Avalon Project : British White Paper of 1939

To fully appreciate the thought conveyed (not necessarily the intent), one must also consider the timeline.

• Balfour Declaration (1917)
• The Covenant of the League of Nations (June 1919 & effective January 1920)
• Treaty of Sevres (Aug 1920)
• Twelfth Zionist Congress (Sep 1921)
• BWP#1 (June 1922)
• Mandate for Palestine (Aug 1922)
• BWP#2 (1939)

The key, in this conversation, in BWP#1 (AKA: The Churchill Paper), which comes before the Mandate, and addresses the question directly, at a time when all the basic documents are fresh and uncorrupted by memory, policy chances, and subsequent events.

• at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

• It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.

• When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride. But in order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on the sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.

• Nevertheless, it is the intention of His Majesty's overnment to foster the establishment of a full measure of self government in Palestine. But they are of the opinion that, in the special circumstances of that country, this should be accomplished by gradual stages and not suddenly.

The BWP#2 was written 17 years later (almost two decades) by an entirely different internal UK government regime, and after the formation of the Black Hand [one of the first Palestinian anti-Government Insurent Groups assembled by Izz al-Qassam (namesake of the al-Qassam Rocket and the Hamas Brigade of the same name)], and the rain of terror that followed. And the tone of the BWP#2 reflects the frustration of the Mandatory given the notable Arab/Palestinian violence which emerged, absent any decision on Statehood for either faction; let alone favoring one over the other. But it was clear at that time, that the Arab/Palestinians had not yet mastered the ability to settle their disputes with the Jewish people by peaceful means and in such a manner that peace, security, and justice are not endangered. Thus the Mandatory saw it was necessary that an official statement be made that statehood was not yet on the agenda or being considered.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Paul is not wrong here. There is no equivocation between the phrase "Jewish National Home" and "Jewish State." While they are not equal --- and meanings are not the same, it does not preclude a "Jewish State." It is diplomatic-ese that statehood was not an inevitability.

The concept of a "Jewish State" is but one way to achieve the goal of a "Jewish National Homeland."

"a NATIONAL HOME means neither a nation or a state"

<<<< the most idiotic statement of the century

Not at all. Read the 1939 British white paper.

(COMMENT)

While the intent of the national authors is a bit ambiguous, interpretation of the thought by the audience is as at least important as the intent (no matter what the original intent was).

The Balfour Declaration (1917), on the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, was subsequently amplified twice by the UK.

• British White Paper (BWP#1) of June 1922 on Palestine
  • The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922
  • http://www.hartzman.com/Israel/Mandate Era/Churchill White Paper - 1922.pdf
• British White Paper (BWP#2) of 1939 on Palestine
  • The Avalon Project : British White Paper of 1939

To fully appreciate the thought conveyed (not necessarily the intent), one must also consider the timeline.

• Balfour Declaration (1917)
• The Covenant of the League of Nations (June 1919 & effective January 1920)
• Treaty of Sevres (Aug 1920)
• Twelfth Zionist Congress (Sep 1921)
• BWP#1 (June 1922)
• Mandate for Palestine (Aug 1922)
• BWP#2 (1939)

The key, in this conversation, in BWP#1 (AKA: The Churchill Paper), which comes before the Mandate, and addresses the question directly, at a time when all the basic documents are fresh and uncorrupted by memory, policy chances, and subsequent events.

• at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

• It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.

• When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride. But in order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on the sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.

• Nevertheless, it is the intention of His Majesty's overnment to foster the establishment of a full measure of self government in Palestine. But they are of the opinion that, in the special circumstances of that country, this should be accomplished by gradual stages and not suddenly.

The BWP#2 was written 17 years later (almost two decades) by an entirely different internal UK government regime, and after the formation of the Black Hand [one of the first Palestinian anti-Government Insurent Groups assembled by Izz al-Qassam (namesake of the al-Qassam Rocket and the Hamas Brigade of the same name)], and the rain of terror that followed. And the tone of the BWP#2 reflects the frustration of the Mandatory given the notable Arab/Palestinian violence which emerged, absent any decision on Statehood for either faction; let alone favoring one over the other. But it was clear at that time, that the Arab/Palestinians had not yet mastered the ability to settle their disputes with the Jewish people by peaceful means and in such a manner that peace, security, and justice are not endangered. Thus the Mandatory saw it was necessary that an official statement be made that statehood was not yet on the agenda or being considered.

Most Respectfully,
R

the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

Of course that was a lie for public consumption. There was no intention of moving into Palestine to live with the natives.There was no such thing as making a "flourishing common community." It became apparent early on that this was a settler colonialist project. Settlers were being imported by the boatload and everywhere they settled the natives were shoved aside. When the natives brought their concerns to the mandate, Britain shoved them aside also. There was no peaceful solution available to the natives.

This went counter to the LoN covenant and the stated goal of mandate itself. What the lying propagandists call "attacks on the Jews" was the natives defending their country from this takeover.

 

[Billo_Really]

Of course that was a lie for public consumption. There was no intention of moving into Palestine to live with the natives.There was no such thing as making a "flourishing common community." It became apparent early on that this was a settler colonialist project. Settlers were being imported by the boatload and everywhere they settled the natives were shoved aside. When the natives brought their concerns to the mandate, Britain shoved them aside also. There was no peaceful solution available to the natives.

This went counter to the LoN covenant and the stated goal of mandate itself. What the lying propagandists call "attacks on the Jews" was the natives defending their country from this takeover.

I already proved this in an earlier post and RoccoR wouldn't even respond to it.

 

[RoccoR]

lionboy,

I apologize. I obviously missed something (some proof of some sort) or something.

I already proved this in an earlier post and RoccoR wouldn't even respond to it.

(APOLOGY)

Having missed something, and owing you an apology for ignoring a comment, for which I should have responded, I sincerely apologize.

Please point me to the applicable comment (post #) and I'll make a response.

Very Sincerely,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

lionboy,

I apologize. I obviously missed something (some proof of some sort) or something.


Having missed something, and owing you an apology for ignoring a comment, for which I should have responded, I sincerely apologize.

Please point me to the applicable comment (post #) and I'll make a response.

Post #106.

 

[RoccoR]

loinboy, et al,

First, let's make it clear, the Shaw Commission did not find any irregularities in the transfer of land and leasing. What land that was acquired, was done legally. In fact, one of the conclusions of the Shaw Commission was:

• "Jewish enterprise and Jewish immigration, when not in excess of the absorptive capacity of the country, have conferred material benefits upon Palestine in which the Arab people share."

So even when land was acquired by non-violent means, indigenous arabs were still denied access to jobs and the ability to make a living and provide for their families.

(COMMENT)

The remainder of the citations made in the Posting (#106 from the Simpson Report) covers business strategies. They are not "Apartheid" measures by any stretch of the imagination.

The two Simpson observations dealt with "land" and "employment.

LAND: There are several land investment strategies that are time honored. The first of these has to do with terminal holdings; the last sale of the property is the one made to you. It works on the principle that land is a tangible wealth accumulator that only increases in value. It is a strategy that has been taught for centuries, in every business school, and still taught today. (It is not something new or unique to the Jewish application in the Middle East. Many of the richest families in America have this same rule.)

TO HAVE AND TO HOLD[/B]

In previous books we have strongly advocated the principle "Always Buy Never Sell". Nothing has changed our view.

SOURCE: The Wealth Power of Property

Why is "never sell" the greatest property investment strategy?

Two reasons.

1) Investment properties will never be cheaper, and

2) The rental returns from those properties will never be as low!

SOURCE: best property investment strategy.......never sell!

EMPLOYMENT: Several factors come into play relative to the employment issues. These factors include, but are not limited to, cultural teaching attitudes towards work, commitment to the family and community, immigrations support, and economic revenue circulation. Some of these may sound familiar, as they are very similar to the practices of the Arab Communities in the oil and gas business, and were key factors in the nationalization of foreign oil holdings.

Working the family farm or business has, in the last century in America (and in particular the last five decades), fallen outside the norm. Offspring no longer establish apprenticeships with their parents (particularly their fathers) or learn the commitment to the family business or the continuation of responsibility to the family by improving the family business. But prior to WWII, and through the Baby Boomer age, this was not an uncommon theme in America, as well as, the Jewish culture developing in the Middle East, brought though immigration. This focus on the responsibility to support the family, community, and culture is not such a departure from the Judeo-Christian ethics and values practiced in the last century:

• The Traditional Family (Self explanatory.)
• A National Work Ethic (2 Thessalonians 3:10 "For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat.")
• The Right to an Education (Deuteronomy 6:7 "You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up.")
• Personal Accountability (Hebrews 9:27 "And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment.")

Because a National Homeland was the objective by declaration, treaty and mandate, to be enjoyed by all the Jewish People from all parts of the world, immigration was an inevitability (Article 4, Mandate, "all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home"). And it would be incumbent on the Jewish Population to support that new immigration influx and make it productive and prosperous. This was not a new and startling revelation to the LoN, the Mandatory, or the Jewish People.

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

SOURCE: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations (12 August 1922)

Everyone, but the Arab Population, understood that building a Jewish National Home, from near scratch, was going to be hard work and that hardish would be expected. The fact that the local Arab Population did not profit to the degree they wanted, is not the fault of the Jewish Immigrant. Remember, there were Arab Profiteers; as noted in an observation in the Hope-Simpson Report:

"They [Jews] paid high prices for the land, and in addition they paid to certain of the occupants of those lands a considerable amount of money which they were not legally bound to pay."

SOURCE: Report on Immigration, Land Settlement and Development, Cmd. 3686 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, the fact that the Arab Land Sale Profiteering did not trickle down to the general population and bust the economy was not the fault of the Jewish Immigrant; but that of the greedy Arab Profiteers that syphoned the wealth out of the region.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RoccoR,

So you believe the takeover of someones country is OK of it is done by the proper foreigners?

 

[P F Tinmore]

loinboy, et al,

First, let's make it clear, the Shaw Commission did not find any irregularities in the transfer of land and leasing. What land that was acquired, was done legally. In fact, one of the conclusions of the Shaw Commission was:

• "Jewish enterprise and Jewish immigration, when not in excess of the absorptive capacity of the country, have conferred material benefits upon Palestine in which the Arab people share."

So even when land was acquired by non-violent means, indigenous arabs were still denied access to jobs and the ability to make a living and provide for their families.

(COMMENT)

The remainder of the citations made in the Posting (#106 from the Simpson Report) covers business strategies. They are not "Apartheid" measures by any stretch of the imagination.

The two Simpson observations dealt with "land" and "employment.

LAND: There are several land investment strategies that are time honored. The first of these has to do with terminal holdings; the last sale of the property is the one made to you. It works on the principle that land is a tangible wealth accumulator that only increases in value. It is a strategy that has been taught for centuries, in every business school, and still taught today. (It is not something new or unique to the Jewish application in the Middle East. Many of the richest families in America have this same rule.)


EMPLOYMENT: Several factors come into play relative to the employment issues. These factors include, but are not limited to, cultural teaching attitudes towards work, commitment to the family and community, immigrations support, and economic revenue circulation. Some of these may sound familiar, as they are very similar to the practices of the Arab Communities in the oil and gas business, and were key factors in the nationalization of foreign oil holdings.

Working the family farm or business has, in the last century in America (and in particular the last five decades), fallen outside the norm. Offspring no longer establish apprenticeships with their parents (particularly their fathers) or learn the commitment to the family business or the continuation of responsibility to the family by improving the family business. But prior to WWII, and through the Baby Boomer age, this was not an uncommon theme in America, as well as, the Jewish culture developing in the Middle East, brought though immigration. This focus on the responsibility to support the family, community, and culture is not such a departure from the Judeo-Christian ethics and values practiced in the last century:

• The Traditional Family (Self explanatory.)
• A National Work Ethic (2 Thessalonians 3:10 "For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat.")
• The Right to an Education (Deuteronomy 6:7 "You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up.")
• Personal Accountability (Hebrews 9:27 "And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment.")

Because a National Homeland was the objective by declaration, treaty and mandate, to be enjoyed by all the Jewish People from all parts of the world, immigration was an inevitability (Article 4, Mandate, "all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home"). And it would be incumbent on the Jewish Population to support that new immigration influx and make it productive and prosperous. This was not a new and startling revelation to the LoN, the Mandatory, or the Jewish People.

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

SOURCE: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations (12 August 1922)

Everyone, but the Arab Population, understood that building a Jewish National Home, from near scratch, was going to be hard work and that hardish would be expected. The fact that the local Arab Population did not profit to the degree they wanted, is not the fault of the Jewish Immigrant. Remember, there were Arab Profiteers; as noted in an observation in the Hope-Simpson Report:

"They [Jews] paid high prices for the land, and in addition they paid to certain of the occupants of those lands a considerable amount of money which they were not legally bound to pay."

SOURCE: Report on Immigration, Land Settlement and Development, Cmd. 3686 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, the fact that the Arab Land Sale Profiteering did not trickle down to the general population and bust the economy was not the fault of the Jewish Immigrant; but that of the greedy Arab Profiteers that syphoned the wealth out of the region.

Most Respectfully,
R

WOW, a whole page of external interference.

“By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.”

It is clearly illegal under international law to deprive a people of their right to self-determination by using forcible actions including use of violence.

The right to self-determination - IHL

 

[irosie91]

loinboy, et al,

First, let's make it clear, the Shaw Commission did not find any irregularities in the transfer of land and leasing. What land that was acquired, was done legally. In fact, one of the conclusions of the Shaw Commission was:

• "Jewish enterprise and Jewish immigration, when not in excess of the absorptive capacity of the country, have conferred material benefits upon Palestine in which the Arab people share."

So even when land was acquired by non-violent means, indigenous arabs were still denied access to jobs and the ability to make a living and provide for their families.

(COMMENT)

The remainder of the citations made in the Posting (#106 from the Simpson Report) covers business strategies. They are not "Apartheid" measures by any stretch of the imagination.

The two Simpson observations dealt with "land" and "employment.

LAND: There are several land investment strategies that are time honored. The first of these has to do with terminal holdings; the last sale of the property is the one made to you. It works on the principle that land is a tangible wealth accumulator that only increases in value. It is a strategy that has been taught for centuries, in every business school, and still taught today. (It is not something new or unique to the Jewish application in the Middle East. Many of the richest families in America have this same rule.)

EMPLOYMENT: Several factors come into play relative to the employment issues. These factors include, but are not limited to, cultural teaching attitudes towards work, commitment to the family and community, immigrations support, and economic revenue circulation. Some of these may sound familiar, as they are very similar to the practices of the Arab Communities in the oil and gas business, and were key factors in the nationalization of foreign oil holdings.

Working the family farm or business has, in the last century in America (and in particular the last five decades), fallen outside the norm. Offspring no longer establish apprenticeships with their parents (particularly their fathers) or learn the commitment to the family business or the continuation of responsibility to the family by improving the family business. But prior to WWII, and through the Baby Boomer age, this was not an uncommon theme in
America, as well as, the Jewish culture developing in the Middle East, brought though immigration. This focus on the responsibility to support the family, community, and culture is not such a departure from the Judeo-Christian ethics and values practiced in the last century:

• The Traditional Family (Self explanatory.)
• A National Work Ethic (2 Thessalonians 3:10 "For even
  when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat.")
• The Right to an Education (Deuteronomy 6:7 "You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up.")
• Personal Accountability (Hebrews 9:27 "And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment.")

Because a National Homeland was the objective by declaration, treaty and mandate, to be enjoyed by all the Jewish People from all parts of the world, immigration was an inevitability (Article 4, Mandate, "all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home"). And it would be incumbent on the Jewish Population to support that new immigration influx and make it productive and prosperous. This was not a new and startling revelation to the LoN, the Mandatory, or the Jewish People.

Everyone, but the Arab Population, understood that building a Jewish National Home, from near scratch, was going to be hard work and that hardish would be expected. The fact that the local Arab Population did not profit to the degree they wanted, is not the fault of the Jewish Immigrant. Remember, there were Arab Profiteers; as noted in an observation in the Hope-Simpson Report:

Again, the fact that the Arab Land Sale Profiteering did not trickle down to the general population and bust the economy was not the fault of the Jewish Immigrant; but that of the greedy Arab Profiteers that syphoned the wealth out of the region.

Most Respectfully,
R

WOW, a whole page of external interference.

“By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.”

It is clearly illegal under international law to deprive a people of their right to self-determination by using forcible actions including use of violence.

The right to self-determination - IHL

Mr R. try to understand---in the islamo nazi world there are
"INSIDERS" and "OUTSIDERS" I know about it because I
grew up in a semi-rural/suburban WASP town in the USA. Some
people----in the case of my town,, blue eyed episcopalians----
are INSIDERS ---no matter from where or how they got into town,,
and some people are always OUTSIDERS---no matter how long
they lived in town or how they acquired their property.

What tinnie explained to you is----in HIS world-----arabs
are "INSIDERS" and jews are "OUTSIDERS"

The model does include a kind of resident caste----in my town
there were some blacks----also OUTSIDERS---but they could
be tolerated as "residents" --not INSIDERS---if they belonged
to a "SERVANT" caste In the islamo-nazi world---jews can
be tolerated ---not as insiders---but as shoemakers and
pharmacists<< in a kind of caste

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore; et al,

What you call "external interference" is really the "will of the General Assembly" concerning an obligation under Charter, Treaty and executed by Resolution.

Your citation is not applicable, as there is specific language within the charter concerning Trusteeship (AKA: Mandates). You are not citing the Charter or the Law. You are citing a dissertation from the IHL, which amplifies the GA Resolution 2625 (XXV) more than the Charter. In this case, the conflict arising from the hostilities opened by the Palestinians are surely applicable. Nothing in GA Resolution 2625 (XXV) authorizes settlement through armed insurgent activity; in fact, it speaks to the contrary.

WOW, a whole page of external interference.

“By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.”

It is clearly illegal under international law to deprive a people of their right to self-determination by using forcible actions including use of violence.

The right to self-determination - IHL

(COMMENT)

Again, GA Resolution 181(II) was a non-binding, voluntary agreement (by offer) between the GA and two parties. Since it was voluntary - it did not require Security Council Action. The power and authority of the Security Council does not extend over peaceful agreements by the GA.

The General Assembly shall perform such functions with respect to the international trusteeship system as are assigned to it under Chapters XII and XIII, including the approval of the trusteeship agreements for areas not designated as strategic.

Note: The UN Trustee Council is the successor organization to LoN Mandate System.​

The trusteeship system shall apply to such territories in the following categories as may be placed thereunder by means of trusteeship agreements:

a. territories now held under mandate;
b. territories which may be detached from enemy states as a result of the Second World War; and
c. territories voluntarily placed under the system by states responsible for their administration.​

It will be a matter for subsequent agreement as to which territories in the foregoing categories will be brought under the trusteeship system and upon what terms.

SOURCE: Charter of the United Nations: Chapter XII: International Trusteeship System

SOURCE: Charter of the United Nations: Chapter IV: The General Assembly

The Charter does not preclude action by the GA relative to Trusteeship (formerly Mandates). In this case, it was a "Charter Obligation" and not "External Interference;" since, by Charter the action are authorized. External Interference applies to a set of different situations. In fact, while the Charter does use the words "self-determination" once, in Chapter I, it doesn't use the words "external influence" at all in the entire Charter. That is unique phrasing in the 1970 GA Resolution 2625 (XXV): Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States. And it require compliance with the Charter. Trusteeships (Mandates) are cited in the Charter. In this case, the Palestinians are in non-compliance. (Failure to Recognize and Armed Aggression)

The functions of the United Nations with regard to trusteeship agreements for all areas not designated as strategic, including the approval of the terms of the trusteeship agreements and of their alteration or amendment, shall be exercised by the General Assembly.

The Trusteeship Council, operating under the authority of the General Assembly shall assist the General Assembly in carrying out these functions.

Note: In 1922, on the establishment of the Palestine Mandate, there was no designation of "strategic" over the region of Palestine.​

SOURCE: Charter of the United Nations: Chapter XII: International Trusteeship System

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore; et al,

This is a trick question.

• If I say yes, then I'm guilty, it would suggest that something was taken by the Israelis from the Arabs.
• If I say no, then I suggest the belief that it belonged to the Palestinians.

Palestine was not a country, it was an undefined region. In 1920 it was a region with a population and territory under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire; and an enemy realm composing opposition to the Allied Powers.

In one sense, the Great War (WWI) never ended. There has been almost constant and continuous fighting between the powers-that-be, and the Arab/Palestinian since the closure of hostilities with the Ottoman Forces.

RoccoR,

So you believe the takeover of someones country is OK of it is done by the proper foreigners?

(COMMENT)

No one took over "someones country;" least of all, from the Arab/Palestinians. The territory was given over to the Mandatory of the Allied Powers; not to the Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore; et al,

This is a trick question.

• If I say yes, then I'm guilty, it would suggest that something was taken by the Israelis from the Arabs.
• If I say no, then I suggest the belief that it belonged to the Palestinians.

Palestine was not a country, it was an undefined region. In 1920 it was a region with a population and territory under the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire; and an enemy realm composing opposition to the Allied Powers.

In one sense, the Great War (WWI) never ended. There has been almost constant and continuous fighting between the powers-that-be, and the Arab/Palestinian since the closure of hostilities with the Ottoman Forces.

RoccoR,

So you believe the takeover of someones country is OK of it is done by the proper foreigners?

(COMMENT)

No one took over "someones country;" least of all, from the Arab/Palestinians. The territory was given over to the Mandatory of the Allied Powers; not to the Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

The territory was given over to the Mandatory

No it wasn't.