The Balfour Declaration

[Sixties Fan]

The Balfour Declaration became binding in international law with the decisions of the San Remo conference and the British Mandate of the League of Nations, and the consequent chain of events. But it has never been accepted by the Arab world, though some Arab leaders for a time appeared to abide by the declaration.

A promising step, all too brief, came on January 3, 1919 in London when an agreement, conditionally accepting Balfour, was signed between Weizmann and Emir Faisal ibn Hussein, soon to be king of Syria and then Iraq. Its preamble commented on the racial kinship and ancient bonds between the Arabs and the Jewish people. It agreed to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale.

Later, Faisal, who had spoken of the necessity for cooperation between the two peoples, wrote that the Arabs, especially "the educated among us," looked with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement which is national and not imperialist, as is the Arab movement. The demands of the Zionists, he thought, were moderate and proper. Similar approval, if on a lesser level, was expressed in August 1918 by the Ottoman Grand Vizier Talaat Pasha for the establishment of a Jewish religious and national center in Palestine.

(full article online)

The Balfour Declaration and British Leftist anti-Semitism - The Commentator

 

[Sixties Fan]

The Facebook page of Fatah – you know, the party to which our “peace partner” Mahmoud Abbas belongs – has marked the 100th year since the Balfour Declaration with this quaint little illustration.
------
The antisemitic caricature is a nice touch, don’t you think?

But seriously, if they truly saw this as purely a territorial dispute, why the disparaging of Jews?

(full article online)

Fatah Facebook Page Unleashes Some Antisemitism to Mark Balfour Anniversary

 

[Shusha]

Again, the international recognition of a peoples to a national homeland where they have a long history is a positive thing. It does not negate anyone's rights to acknowledge a peoples rights. Every other dispute of this nature in the past hundred years has been solved by dividing the territory and forming a nation for each peoples.

Yugoslavia is now what six? nations? Why do the Arabs continue to refuse this simple solution?

 

[thetor]

The people with the bigger army and better weapons are the ones who get to say their God mandated them that land, as has always been the case over there.

Who mandated it to the British?

very good question

 

[Sixties Fan]

The people with the bigger army and better weapons are the ones who get to say their God mandated them that land, as has always been the case over there.

Who mandated it to the British?

very good question

Who mandated Lebanon and Syria to the French?
Or Mesopotamia (Iraq) to the British?

Why did the Ottoman Empire join the German Empire in WWI ?
Why did both lose that war?
What does it mean when countries lose wars where they wanted to expand their Empires?

 

[thetor]

The people with the bigger army and better weapons are the ones who get to say their God mandated them that land, as has always been the case over there.

Who mandated it to the British?

very good question

Who mandated Lebanon and Syria to the French?
Or Mesopotamia (Iraq) to the British?

Why did the Ottoman Empire join the German Empire in WWI ?
Why did both lose that war?
What does it mean when countries lose wars where they wanted to expand their Empires?

Miscalculation Sixties,every "Ëmpire" for use of a better word,die eventually...As Britain have shown since the end of WW2...I trust you are well,I quite like your posts(I can or am a bit of a bastard sometimes but I do appreciate much of your prose,although,not always agreeing with you) steven

 

[Sixties Fan]

The people with the bigger army and better weapons are the ones who get to say their God mandated them that land, as has always been the case over there.

Who mandated it to the British?

very good question

Who mandated Lebanon and Syria to the French?
Or Mesopotamia (Iraq) to the British?

Why did the Ottoman Empire join the German Empire in WWI ?
Why did both lose that war?
What does it mean when countries lose wars where they wanted to expand their Empires?

Miscalculation Sixties,every "Ëmpire" for use of a better word,die eventually...As Britain have shown since the end of WW2...I trust you are well,I quite like your posts(I can or am a bit of a bastard sometimes but I do appreciate much of your prose,although,not always agreeing with you) steven

If the Ottoman Empire died, and to the victors go the spoils, what are you basically making a fuss about?

The Ottomans did not have any more say over the territory. The victorious Allies did. They did what they wanted to do, right or wrong, it worked or not. Iraq, not!
Left the Kurds without a State.

Things will get set the right way, if possible, eventually.

Britain is dying as an Empire? We shall see. During our lifetime, or not.

 

[thetor]

The people with the bigger army and better weapons are the ones who get to say their God mandated them that land, as has always been the case over there.

Who mandated it to the British?

very good question

Who mandated Lebanon and Syria to the French?
Or Mesopotamia (Iraq) to the British?

Why did the Ottoman Empire join the German Empire in WWI ?
Why did both lose that war?
What does it mean when countries lose wars where they wanted to expand their Empires?

Miscalculation Sixties,every "Ëmpire" for use of a better word,die eventually...As Britain have shown since the end of WW2...I trust you are well,I quite like your posts(I can or am a bit of a bastard sometimes but I do appreciate much of your prose,although,not always agreeing with you) steven

If the Ottoman Empire died, and to the victors go the spoils, what are you basically making a fuss about?

The Ottomans did not have any more say over the territory. The victorious Allies did. They did what they wanted to do, right or wrong, it worked or not. Iraq, not!
Left the Kurds without a State.

Things will get set the right way, if possible, eventually.

Britain is dying as an Empire? We shall see. During our lifetime, or not.

Britain has already lost their Empire,it is to see if America does during our lifetime Sixties,that is the question...steven

 

[P F Tinmore]

The people with the bigger army and better weapons are the ones who get to say their God mandated them that land, as has always been the case over there.

Who mandated it to the British?

very good question

Who mandated Lebanon and Syria to the French?
Or Mesopotamia (Iraq) to the British?

Why did the Ottoman Empire join the German Empire in WWI ?
Why did both lose that war?
What does it mean when countries lose wars where they wanted to expand their Empires?

Miscalculation Sixties,every "Ëmpire" for use of a better word,die eventually...As Britain have shown since the end of WW2...I trust you are well,I quite like your posts(I can or am a bit of a bastard sometimes but I do appreciate much of your prose,although,not always agreeing with you) steven

If the Ottoman Empire died, and to the victors go the spoils, what are you basically making a fuss about?

The Ottomans did not have any more say over the territory. The victorious Allies did. They did what they wanted to do, right or wrong, it worked or not. Iraq, not!
Left the Kurds without a State.

Things will get set the right way, if possible, eventually.

Britain is dying as an Empire? We shall see. During our lifetime, or not.

If the Ottoman Empire died, and to the victors go the spoils, what are you basically making a fuss about?

Not really. The land was ceded to the new successor states. The Mandates did not acquire any land.

 

[Shusha]

We really should put this in perspective.

"The UN views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Arab Palestinian people."

Oh my. The HORROR!

 

[Hollie]

Who mandated it to the British?

very good question

Who mandated Lebanon and Syria to the French?
Or Mesopotamia (Iraq) to the British?

Why did the Ottoman Empire join the German Empire in WWI ?
Why did both lose that war?
What does it mean when countries lose wars where they wanted to expand their Empires?

Miscalculation Sixties,every "Ëmpire" for use of a better word,die eventually...As Britain have shown since the end of WW2...I trust you are well,I quite like your posts(I can or am a bit of a bastard sometimes but I do appreciate much of your prose,although,not always agreeing with you) steven

If the Ottoman Empire died, and to the victors go the spoils, what are you basically making a fuss about?

The Ottomans did not have any more say over the territory. The victorious Allies did. They did what they wanted to do, right or wrong, it worked or not. Iraq, not!
Left the Kurds without a State.

Things will get set the right way, if possible, eventually.

Britain is dying as an Empire? We shall see. During our lifetime, or not.

If the Ottoman Empire died, and to the victors go the spoils, what are you basically making a fuss about?

Not really. The land was ceded to the new successor states. The Mandates did not acquire any land.

Not really. Your invented “country of Pal’istan” was never designated as a successor state.

You continually lie about this.

 

[Mindful]

very good question

Who mandated Lebanon and Syria to the French?
Or Mesopotamia (Iraq) to the British?

Why did the Ottoman Empire join the German Empire in WWI ?
Why did both lose that war?
What does it mean when countries lose wars where they wanted to expand their Empires?

Miscalculation Sixties,every "Ëmpire" for use of a better word,die eventually...As Britain have shown since the end of WW2...I trust you are well,I quite like your posts(I can or am a bit of a bastard sometimes but I do appreciate much of your prose,although,not always agreeing with you) steven

If the Ottoman Empire died, and to the victors go the spoils, what are you basically making a fuss about?

The Ottomans did not have any more say over the territory. The victorious Allies did. They did what they wanted to do, right or wrong, it worked or not. Iraq, not!
Left the Kurds without a State.

Things will get set the right way, if possible, eventually.

Britain is dying as an Empire? We shall see. During our lifetime, or not.

If the Ottoman Empire died, and to the victors go the spoils, what are you basically making a fuss about?

Not really. The land was ceded to the new successor states. The Mandates did not acquire any land.

Not really. Your invented “country of Pal’istan” was never designated as a successor state.

You continually lie about this.

The question is: why does he?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Israel and Palestine
※→ Mindful, Hollie, et al,

I highly suspect that he read this on some "anti-smectic" or "pro-Palestinian Website."

Not really. Your invented “country of Pal’istan” was never designated as a successor state.

You continually lie about this.

The question is: why does he?

(OBSERVATION)

I think this point is very important to the Arab Palestinian. If the is challenged, then the entire argument behind the Arab Palestinian begins to crumble.

V/R
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

very good question

Who mandated Lebanon and Syria to the French?
Or Mesopotamia (Iraq) to the British?

Why did the Ottoman Empire join the German Empire in WWI ?
Why did both lose that war?
What does it mean when countries lose wars where they wanted to expand their Empires?

Miscalculation Sixties,every "Ëmpire" for use of a better word,die eventually...As Britain have shown since the end of WW2...I trust you are well,I quite like your posts(I can or am a bit of a bastard sometimes but I do appreciate much of your prose,although,not always agreeing with you) steven

If the Ottoman Empire died, and to the victors go the spoils, what are you basically making a fuss about?

The Ottomans did not have any more say over the territory. The victorious Allies did. They did what they wanted to do, right or wrong, it worked or not. Iraq, not!
Left the Kurds without a State.

Things will get set the right way, if possible, eventually.

Britain is dying as an Empire? We shall see. During our lifetime, or not.

If the Ottoman Empire died, and to the victors go the spoils, what are you basically making a fuss about?

Not really. The land was ceded to the new successor states. The Mandates did not acquire any land.

Not really. Your invented “country of Pal’istan” was never designated as a successor state.

You continually lie about this.

Decisions of international and national tribunals

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[16]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

 

[Hollie]

Who mandated Lebanon and Syria to the French?
Or Mesopotamia (Iraq) to the British?

Why did the Ottoman Empire join the German Empire in WWI ?
Why did both lose that war?
What does it mean when countries lose wars where they wanted to expand their Empires?

Miscalculation Sixties,every "Ëmpire" for use of a better word,die eventually...As Britain have shown since the end of WW2...I trust you are well,I quite like your posts(I can or am a bit of a bastard sometimes but I do appreciate much of your prose,although,not always agreeing with you) steven

If the Ottoman Empire died, and to the victors go the spoils, what are you basically making a fuss about?

The Ottomans did not have any more say over the territory. The victorious Allies did. They did what they wanted to do, right or wrong, it worked or not. Iraq, not!
Left the Kurds without a State.

Things will get set the right way, if possible, eventually.

Britain is dying as an Empire? We shall see. During our lifetime, or not.

If the Ottoman Empire died, and to the victors go the spoils, what are you basically making a fuss about?

Not really. The land was ceded to the new successor states. The Mandates did not acquire any land.

Not really. Your invented “country of Pal’istan” was never designated as a successor state.

You continually lie about this.

Decisions of international and national tribunals

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[16]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

I'm not surprised that you, as an expert in international law, would cut and paste from wiki.

Wiki was not a part of the Mandate.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Miscalculation Sixties,every "Ëmpire" for use of a better word,die eventually...As Britain have shown since the end of WW2...I trust you are well,I quite like your posts(I can or am a bit of a bastard sometimes but I do appreciate much of your prose,although,not always agreeing with you) steven

If the Ottoman Empire died, and to the victors go the spoils, what are you basically making a fuss about?

The Ottomans did not have any more say over the territory. The victorious Allies did. They did what they wanted to do, right or wrong, it worked or not. Iraq, not!
Left the Kurds without a State.

Things will get set the right way, if possible, eventually.

Britain is dying as an Empire? We shall see. During our lifetime, or not.

If the Ottoman Empire died, and to the victors go the spoils, what are you basically making a fuss about?

Not really. The land was ceded to the new successor states. The Mandates did not acquire any land.

Not really. Your invented “country of Pal’istan” was never designated as a successor state.

You continually lie about this.

Decisions of international and national tribunals

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[16]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

I'm not surprised that you, as an expert in international law, would cut and paste from wiki.

Wiki was not a part of the Mandate.

The contention of the plaintiff that Palestine, while under the League of Nations mandate, was not a foreign state within the meaning of the statute is wholly without merit.""In support, the court said that the United States in 1932 had taken the position that Palestine was a state: "This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932," the court explained, "with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in treaties of commerce."84 The court found a reference to the 1932 episode in the State Department's digest of international law, where it is mentioned as indicating that the United States considered that Palestine was a state.

The British government was so anxious to exempt Palestine without losing tariff revenue on goods from the United States and several other states, that it examined the possibility of suing on the matter in the PCIJ. The British government's own legal office advised against suing, however, because the PCIJ had already said that Palestine was a state that was successor to Turkey with respect to the territory of Palestine.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil

 

[Mindful]

If the Ottoman Empire died, and to the victors go the spoils, what are you basically making a fuss about?

The Ottomans did not have any more say over the territory. The victorious Allies did. They did what they wanted to do, right or wrong, it worked or not. Iraq, not!
Left the Kurds without a State.

Things will get set the right way, if possible, eventually.

Britain is dying as an Empire? We shall see. During our lifetime, or not.

If the Ottoman Empire died, and to the victors go the spoils, what are you basically making a fuss about?

Not really. The land was ceded to the new successor states. The Mandates did not acquire any land.

Not really. Your invented “country of Pal’istan” was never designated as a successor state.

You continually lie about this.

Decisions of international and national tribunals

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[16]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

I'm not surprised that you, as an expert in international law, would cut and paste from wiki.

Wiki was not a part of the Mandate.

The contention of the plaintiff that Palestine, while under the League of Nations mandate, was not a foreign state within the meaning of the statute is wholly without merit.""In support, the court said that the United States in 1932 had taken the position that Palestine was a state: "This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932," the court explained, "with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in treaties of commerce."84 The court found a reference to the 1932 episode in the State Department's digest of international law, where it is mentioned as indicating that the United States considered that Palestine was a state.

The British government was so anxious to exempt Palestine without losing tariff revenue on goods from the United States and several other states, that it examined the possibility of suing on the matter in the PCIJ. The British government's own legal office advised against suing, however, because the PCIJ had already said that Palestine was a state that was successor to Turkey with respect to the territory of Palestine.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil

There has never been an independent State of Palestine.

For the thousandth time!

 

[P F Tinmore]

Not really. The land was ceded to the new successor states. The Mandates did not acquire any land.

Not really. Your invented “country of Pal’istan” was never designated as a successor state.

You continually lie about this.

Decisions of international and national tribunals

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[16]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

I'm not surprised that you, as an expert in international law, would cut and paste from wiki.

Wiki was not a part of the Mandate.

The contention of the plaintiff that Palestine, while under the League of Nations mandate, was not a foreign state within the meaning of the statute is wholly without merit.""In support, the court said that the United States in 1932 had taken the position that Palestine was a state: "This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932," the court explained, "with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in treaties of commerce."84 The court found a reference to the 1932 episode in the State Department's digest of international law, where it is mentioned as indicating that the United States considered that Palestine was a state.

The British government was so anxious to exempt Palestine without losing tariff revenue on goods from the United States and several other states, that it examined the possibility of suing on the matter in the PCIJ. The British government's own legal office advised against suing, however, because the PCIJ had already said that Palestine was a state that was successor to Turkey with respect to the territory of Palestine.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil

There has never been an independent State of Palestine.

Find the thousandth time!

I hear you babbling but I see nothing to back up your claim.

 

[Mindful]

The so-called "Palestinians" are mostly trans-Jordanians (east of the Jordan River), Saudis and Egyptians. Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian, Mahmoud Abbas is a Syrian. And these can be verified by their REAL names.

 

[Mindful]

Not really. Your invented “country of Pal’istan” was never designated as a successor state.

You continually lie about this.

Decisions of international and national tribunals

The U.S. State Department Digest of International Law says that the terms of the Treaty of Lausanne provided for the application of the principles of state succession to the "A" Mandates. The Treaty of Versailles (1920) provisionally recognized the former Ottoman communities as independent nations. It also required Germany to recognize the disposition of the former Ottoman territories and to recognize the new states laid down within their boundaries. The Treaty of Lausanne required the newly created states that acquired the territory to pay annuities on the Ottoman public debt, and to assume responsibility for the administration of concessions that had been granted by the Ottomans. A dispute regarding the status of the territories was settled by an Arbitrator appointed by the Council of the League of Nations. It was decided that Palestine and Transjordan were newly created states according to the terms of the applicable post-war treaties. In its Judgment No. 5, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, the Permanent Court of International Justice also decided that Palestine was responsible as the successor state for concessions granted by Ottoman authorities. The Courts of Palestine and Great Britain decided that title to the properties shown on the Ottoman Civil list had been ceded to the government of Palestine as an allied successor state.[16]

State of Palestine: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

I'm not surprised that you, as an expert in international law, would cut and paste from wiki.

Wiki was not a part of the Mandate.

The contention of the plaintiff that Palestine, while under the League of Nations mandate, was not a foreign state within the meaning of the statute is wholly without merit.""In support, the court said that the United States in 1932 had taken the position that Palestine was a state: "This the Executive branch of the Government did in 1932," the court explained, "with respect to the operation of the most favored nations provision in treaties of commerce."84 The court found a reference to the 1932 episode in the State Department's digest of international law, where it is mentioned as indicating that the United States considered that Palestine was a state.

The British government was so anxious to exempt Palestine without losing tariff revenue on goods from the United States and several other states, that it examined the possibility of suing on the matter in the PCIJ. The British government's own legal office advised against suing, however, because the PCIJ had already said that Palestine was a state that was successor to Turkey with respect to the territory of Palestine.

http://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=mjil

There has never been an independent State of Palestine.

Find the thousandth time!

I hear you babbling but I see nothing to back up your claim.

lol.