The British left nothing in shambles. You're looking for excuses why the Arabs-Moslems could not achieve the successes at building a working civil government and a world-class economy as the Israelis did.
Palestine was already a functioning country (class A mandate) with local governments, international trade, etc.. The only things needed were some national institutions. The Mandate's job was to help them do that. Britain could have been in and out of there in 10 years.
From a particular perspective, the intent that you subscribe to is one in which many considered the true position. But the Jewish Community did not entirely see it that way.
(COMMENT)
.
While it might be accurate to say that the British position in 1939 and the follow-on review by the Royal Commission was to sum up and say:
( ∑ ) The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share in government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded.
And while that looked good on paper as an order political concept and solution, neither of the two communities (Arab and Jewish) in Palestine were forming an ever-widening gap on any agreement and the individual position was considered by the British Government to be "irreconcilable."
.
(COMMENT)
.
Many, in all three political camps, being the British Government, the Arab Higher Committee, and the Jewish Agency, forecasted as much as an expected outcome (the irreconcilable differences) almost from the beginning. And the British did not want to impose a solution that would, in the long run, place one of the two sides as the dominant population. Having reached the last point of impasse, the "conclusion that the only course now open to us is to submit the problem to the judgment of the United Nations (UN)."
The UN favored King Solomon's solution to cut the baby in half; the partition plan. But even that has proven to be less than successful, in that there was the Arab League intervention.
If there was a shambles left in the wake of the British termination, it was a shamble that was ignited by the differences between the Jewish and Arab contingents.
At the opening of Hostilities initiated by the invasion by Arab League forces, neither of the two communities (Arab and Jewish) were willing to bend the knee to the other for fear that the superior of the two would expel the other (which was a real possibility).
And it must be remembered that at the conclusion of WWII, the British government was no longer in a financial position to indefinitely sustain a viable presence in the territory.
.
Palestine was already a functioning country (class A mandate) with local governments, international trade, etc.. The only things needed were some national institutions. The Mandate's job was to help them do that. Britain could have been in and out of there in 10 years.
Inventing a version of history that placates an emotional requirement to present a fictitious "country of Pal'istan" is delusional. There was no "country of Pal'istan".
As expected, you could offer nothing to explain the failure of the Arabs-Moslems posing as "Pal'istanians" to form a working government and at least pose as a functioning society.
Still nothing to support your claim about the Treaty of Lausanne inventing the "country of Pal'istan" or those invented "new states"?
If there was a shambles left in the wake of the British termination, it was a shamble that was ignited by the differences between the Jewish and Arab contingents.
If there was a shambles left in the wake of the British termination, it was a shamble that was ignited by the differences between the Jewish and Arab contingents.
The UN favored King Solomon's solution to cut the baby in half; the partition plan. But even that has proven to be less than successful, in that there was the Arab League intervention.
(COMMENT)
.
The Settlements are being built in Area "C" under the agreement. The Palestinians agreed to Article IV of Annex III (Full Civil and Security Juristidcation).
The Arab Palestinians have not taken the issue up at either the Dispute Resolutions Table or the Permanent Status of Negotiations. So it looks to me that the Arab Palestinians are allowing the Settlements absent an objection.
.
(COMMENT)
.
The Settlements are being built in Area "C" under the agreement. The Palestinians agreed to Article IV of Annex III (Full Civil and Security Juristidcation).
The Arab Palestinians have not taken the issue up at either the Dispute Resolutions Table or the Permanent Status of Negotiations. So it looks to me that the Arab Palestinians are allowing the Settlements absent an objection.
.
The loosely defined geographic area called Palestine was never going to be your imagined islamic mini-caliphate. Ultimately, the UN vte to divide any land area was superceded on May 14, 1948. What an affront it must be to your invented version of history to confront reality.
Actually it's the most successful
and oldest liberation movement in history.
More settlements is great, the Israeli population is rapidly growing, the East Bank mostly undeveloped.
If you think there should be a list of places Jews are not allowed to build - provide it for review.
Look around the Levant - the land knows her true children,
and won't sustain anyone without their presence.
Today, July 24, 2022, marks 100 years since the League of Nations adopted the “Mandate for Palestine.” The sole purpose of the mandate was to empower Great Britain to create a Jewish State in the entire area from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, from Lebanon in the north to the Red Sea in the south.
As the preamble of the Mandate clearly stated:
"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country;” [emphasis added]
While referring to contemporary decisions that had been made by the Allied Powers during and after World War I, the preamble added that the establishment of the Jewish State was not an arbitrary act of the international community to allocate a random piece of land for creating a homeland for the Jewish people. Rather, the preamble emphasized that the goal was a reflection of the historic connection of the Jewish people to that specific piece of land and the recreation of a national homeland that had once existed:
“Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."
For the PA, the Balfour Declaration, referred to in the preamble as the “declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty” is the root of all evil.
Issued on November 2, 1917, the Balfour Declaration stated that “His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.”
At the time, according to Palestinian historian Abd Al-Ghani Salameh, “there was nothing called a Palestinian people”:
"Before the Balfour Promise (i.e., Declaration) when the Ottoman rule ended (1517-1917), Palestine's political borders as we know them today did not exist, and there was nothing called a Palestinian people with a political identity as we know today, since Palestine's lines of administrative division stretched from east to west and included Jordan and southern Lebanon, and like all peoples of the region [the Palestinians] were liberated from the Turkish rule and immediately moved to colonial rule, without forming a Palestinian people's political identity."
[Official PA TV, Nov. 1, 2017]
Nonetheless, as Palestinian Media Watch has already reported, soon after the centennial to mark the issuance of the Balfour Declaration, the Palestinians decided to sue Great Britain, demanding that it take responsibility for issuing the Balfour Declaration that “destroyed the life of an entire Palestinian people” and for alleged “crimes” of British soldiers against the Palestinian people during the Mandate period. The case (Palestinian Journalists Syndicate v. The British Government (2021)) was filed in the PA court in Nablus. Not surprisingly, the court found in favor of the plaintiffs.
Building on their success in the PA court, the Palestinians are now taking the issue to the British courts:
“The Palestinian Journalists’ Syndicate held a meeting yesterday [May 22, 2022] with the legal team supervising the submission of a lawsuit against the British government for its responsibility for the consequences of issuing ‘the Balfour Declaration’.
Lawyer Ben Emmerson briefed the syndicate on the legal proceedings that his team has been supervising for more than a year, which deal with submitting a lawsuit at a British court against the British government so that it will apologize for ‘the Balfour Declaration.’”
[Official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, May 23, 2022]
The Chairperson of the Palestinian Journalists’ Syndicate (the Plaintiffs) Nasser Abu Bakr added:
“The legal team explained in detail that it is important to forcibly extract a ruling condemning ‘the Balfour Declaration’ from a British court… The goal of this effort is to hold Britain responsible for our people’s tragedy, out of an assumption that all the decisions that were based on the Balfour Declaration starting with the establishment of the occupation state and uprooting of the Palestinian people - are invalid and constitute a crime that has continued to this very day.”
[Official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, May 23, 2022]
From a legal point of view, while diplomatically important, the Balfour Declaration was nothing more than a statement of British policy.
In the aftermath of World War I, the allied powers met to discuss the future of the territories that had been held by the Ottoman Empire for 400 years. As regards “Palestine”, the allies resolved:
“The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the [2nd] November, 1917, by the British Government and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” [April 25, 1920]
The decisions made in San Remo in April 1920 by the Allied Powers then formed the basis for the preparation of a number of Mandates. Indeed, 2 years later, alongside the Mandate for Palestine, the League of Nations also adopted the Mandate for Syria and the Mandate for Lebanon. Together with the Mandate for Palestine, it was these instruments that provided the international legitimacy to create Israel (the Jewish State), Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.
Since it is the League of Nations, since replaced by the United Nations, that is truly responsible for creating Israel, the question that must be asked, is: Are the Palestinians going to sue the League of Nations/the UN?
Whatever the Palestinians decide to do, the truth remains that the 24th of July 1922 was probably one of the most important dates in the history of the Jewish people. On this day, the international community openly recognized the connection of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and decided to end 2,000 years of Jewish exile. On this day, the international community gave legitimacy to reconstitute the Jewish national homeland.
If there was a shambles left in the wake of the British termination, it was a shamble that was ignited by the differences between the Jewish and Arab contingents.
The Settlements are being built in Area "C" under the agreement. The Palestinians agreed to Article IV of Annex III (Full Civil and Security Juristidcation).
Correct. The Native Jews were always mistreated by many of the Arab Muslim colonialists.
The British did not only not understand it. They made it worse for the Jewish indigenous people of the land by giving away 78% to the Hashemite Arab colonialists.
palwatch.org
