The McMahon Agreement (palestine Map)

Freeman

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
3,080
Reaction score
128
Points
85
2 YEARS BEFORE balfour absurd declaration, there was a written agreement:

The McMahon-Hussein Agreement

The McMahon-Hussein Agreement of October 1915 was accepted by Palestinians as a promise by the British that after World War One, land previously held by the Turks would be returned to the Arab nationals who lived in that land. The McMahon-Hussein Agreement was to greatly complicate Middle East history and seemed to directly clash with the Balfour Declaration of 1917.

In an effort to create a third front against the Central Powers (Germany, Austria and Turkey) the Allies encouraged the Arab people in the Ottoman Empire to rise up against their Turkish overlords thus splitting the Central Powers war effort three ways.

Sir Henry McMahon, acting on behalf of the British government, met with Sherif Hussein of Mecca in 1915 and made what were taken to be a series of promises to the Arab people. These ‘promises’ were later disputed by the British government and, as with many issues concerning recent Middle East history, were open to interpretation.

The confusion arose from one small phrase in the correspondence between McMahon and Hussein. Land that "cannot be said to be purely Arab" was excluded from the agreement – as far as the British were concerned. Hussein, and very many Arab people, considered Palestine to be "purely Arab". The British saw Palestine differently as the Turks, while they had been masters over Palestine, had allowed other religious groups to exist in Jerusalem – hence their belief that Palestine "cannot be said to be purely Arab".

By the time war ended in November 1918, two distinct schools of thought had developed regarding Palestine:

1) That the British had promised Palestine to the Arabs after the war had ended in return for their support to the Allies in the war.

2) That the British had agreed to give their support to the Jews for a homeland in Palestine as laid out in the Balfour Declaration of 1917.

In fact, neither was to emerge as the League of Nations had given Palestine to the British to govern as a mandate. This left many Palestinians feeling that they had been betrayed by the British government.
the map
MSyria16.gif
 
Last edited:

Marc39

Rookie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
10,018
Reaction score
204
Points
0
2 YEARS BEFORE balfour absurd declaration, there was a written agreement:

Except, the McMahon "agreement" was non-binding, nitwit.
The Balfour Declaration became legally binding when adopted by the League of Nations in issuing the Palestine Mandate establishing Palestine as the Jewish homeland.

Thus, you're punked.
 

Marc39

Rookie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
10,018
Reaction score
204
Points
0
In fact, neither was to emerge as the League of Nations had given Palestine to the British to govern as a mandate. This left many Palestinians feeling that they had been betrayed by the British government.

You conveniently neglected to mention, dopey dope, that the Muslim Ottoman Turks "betrayed" their own Muslim "Palestinians" for 400 years of Ottoman rule prior to the British Mandate by denying them a state. In fact, they stole their land with Tanzimat land reform that transferred the Bedouins' land to the Arab elite who didn't even live in Palestine

Earlier, the Muslim Mamluks betrayed the Pallies in denying them statehood for about 300 years.

That's 7 centuries of Muslim betrayal of Muslim Pallies.

And, when the Arab Muslim Egyptians and Arab Muslim Jordanians occupied Gaza and the West Bank from 1048-1967, they, too, betrayed the Pallies in denying them statehood.

I guess you just missed these facts, eh, troll?
 
OP
Freeman

Freeman

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
3,080
Reaction score
128
Points
85
In fact, neither was to emerge as the League of Nations had given Palestine to the British to govern as a mandate. This left many Palestinians feeling that they had been betrayed by the British government.

You conveniently neglected to mention, dopey dope, that the Muslim Ottoman Turks "betrayed" their own Muslim "Palestinians" for 400 years of Ottoman rule prior to the British Mandate by denying them a state. In fact, they stole their land with Tanzimat land reform that transferred the Bedouins' land to the Arab elite who didn't even live in Palestine

Earlier, the Muslim Mamluks betrayed the Pallies in denying them statehood for about 300 years.

That's 7 centuries of Muslim betrayal of Muslim Pallies.



I guess you just missed these facts, eh, troll?

goofy,
Palestine was under Othoman governance, they never claim a state. As Mac Mahon promised the entire land to native citizens after war, mandatory has no right to invite the iSSraelis aliens or any foreigners to this land. it's forbidden by Law.

balfour was a self declaration of half page!!, but McMahon Agreement was a full agreement between two governors.

And, when the Arab Muslim Egyptians and Arab Muslim Jordanians occupied Gaza and the West Bank from 1048-1967, they, too, betrayed the Pallies in denying them statehood.
sensless, you are a sick!

do you consider America occupied by europeans since 3 centuries?? :cuckoo:

you are a joke.
 
Last edited:

Marc39

Rookie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
10,018
Reaction score
204
Points
0
Palestine was under Othoman governance, they never claim a state. As Mac Mahon promised the entire land to native citizens after war, mandatory has no right to invite the iSSraelis aliens or any foreigners to this land. it's forbidden by Law.

Dopey dope, you failed to mention that the Pallies were betrayed by their own Muslim brethren in being denied a state for 700 years under Ottoman and Mamluk governance.

Try to wrap your lame brain around that fact, fool.

balfour was a self declaration of half page!!, but McMahon Agreement was a full agreement between two governors.

Wrong, moron. Balfour needed approval of the entire British Cabinet, including that of Prime Minister David Lloyd George. Indeed, the British Cabinet and Balfour worked together on several drafts of his Declaration before it was issued.

There are voluminous accounts of the matter. You clearly know less than nothing.

The Palestine Mandate declaring Palestine the Jewish homeland, incorporating the Balfour Declaratoin, is an international treaty unanimously ratified by the League of Nations, completely overshadowing your silly little McMahon Agreement that was non-binding.

And, when the Arab Muslim Egyptians and Arab Muslim Jordanians occupied Gaza and the West Bank from 1048-1967, they, too, betrayed the Pallies in denying them statehood.
sensless, you are a sick!

And, you FAIL, doofus.

do you consider America occupied by europeans since 3 centuries?? :cuckoo:

you are a joke.

Now, you're deflecting, doofus.

You're OWNED and you're done.
 
Last edited:
OP
Freeman

Freeman

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
3,080
Reaction score
128
Points
85
Dopey dope, you failed to mention that the Pallies were betrayed by their own Muslim brethren in being denied a state for 700 years under Ottoman and Mamluk governance.

pigheaded!, all arab cities were under khalifa-- who said that palestinians want a separate state from Othoman or mamluks???!

joke


which law allow mandatory to give lands to aliens despite native citizens?
you don't answer
PWND again
 

Marc39

Rookie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
10,018
Reaction score
204
Points
0
Dopey dope, you failed to mention that the Pallies were betrayed by their own Muslim brethren in being denied a state for 700 years under Ottoman and Mamluk governance.

pigheaded!, all arab cities were under khalifa-- who said that palestinians want a separate state from Othoman or mamluks???!

joke


which law allow mandatory to give lands to aliens despite native citizens?
you don't answer
PWND again

Dopey dope, you lied to everyone in suggesting the Pallies were betrayed by the British in not giving the Pallies a state when the Pallies' own Muslim brethren denied them a state for 700 years.

And, you know less than nothing about the Balfour Declaration. Volumes have been written on the subject matter.

You're such an embarrassment, it isn't even funny.
 
Last edited:
OP
Freeman

Freeman

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
3,080
Reaction score
128
Points
85
Dopey dope, you failed to mention that the Pallies were betrayed by their own Muslim brethren in being denied a state for 700 years under Ottoman and Mamluk governance.

pigheaded!, all arab cities were under khalifa-- who said that palestinians want a separate state from Othoman or mamluks???!

joke


which law allow mandatory to give lands to aliens despite native citizens?
you don't answer
PWND again

Dopey dope, you lied to everyone in suggesting the Pallies were betrayed by the British in not giving the Pallies a state when the Pallies' own Muslim brethren denied them a state for 700 years.

And, you know less than nothing about the Balfour Declaration. Volumes have been written on the subject matter.

You're such an embarrassment, it isn't even funny.
goofy!
there were no states in the past, there were kingdoms and empires.
wake up pigheaded

which law allow mandatory to give lands to aliens despite native citizens? no answer
PWND again
 

Marc39

Rookie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
10,018
Reaction score
204
Points
0
pigheaded!, all arab cities were under khalifa-- who said that palestinians want a separate state from Othoman or mamluks???!

joke


which law allow mandatory to give lands to aliens despite native citizens?
you don't answer
PWND again

Dopey dope, you lied to everyone in suggesting the Pallies were betrayed by the British in not giving the Pallies a state when the Pallies' own Muslim brethren denied them a state for 700 years.

And, you know less than nothing about the Balfour Declaration. Volumes have been written on the subject matter.

You're such an embarrassment, it isn't even funny.
goofy!
there were no states in the past, there were kingdoms and empires.
wake up pigheaded

which law allow mandatory to give lands to aliens despite native citizens? no answer
PWND again

Dumb dumb, Syria and Lebanon existed as independent vilayets under Ottoman rule. But, the Ottomans denied independence to the Pallies.

Furthermore, when the Muslim Turks implemented land reform, the increased taxes forced Pallies to forfeit any small land holdings they may have owned.

Thus, in addition to Muslims denying Pallies independence for 700 years, they also ripped them off and forced them to lose their land.

Don't lie, sick boy.
 

Jos

Rookie
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
7,412
Reaction score
757
Points
0
Eminent Middle East historian Bernard Lewis...
For Arabs, the term Palestine was unacceptable...For Muslims it was alien and irrelevant. The main objection for them was that it seemed to assert a separate entity which politically conscious Arabs in Palestine and elsewhere denied. For them there was no such thing as a country called Palestine. The region which the British called Palestine was merely a separated part of a larger whole. Palestine was not a country and had no frontiers, only administrative boundaries; it was a group of provincial subdivisions, by no means always the same, within a larger entity. For a long time organized and articulate Arab political opinion was virtually unanimous on this point.

At first, the country of which Palestine was a part was felt to be Syria. In Ottoman times, that is, immediately before the coming of the British, Palestine had indeed been a part of a larger Syrian whole from which it was in no way distinguished whether by language, culture, education, administration, political allegiance, or any other significant respect. The dividing line between British-mandated Palestine and French-mandated Syria-Lebanon was an entirely new one and for the people of the area was wholly artificial. It was therefore natural that the nationalist leadership when it first appeared should think in Syrian terms and describe Palestine as southern Syria.

You're PWNED, again, punkass.
You made that quote up, there is no link
:eusa_liar:
 

Marc39

Rookie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
10,018
Reaction score
204
Points
0
Eminent Middle East historian Bernard Lewis...
For Arabs, the term Palestine was unacceptable...For Muslims it was alien and irrelevant. The main objection for them was that it seemed to assert a separate entity which politically conscious Arabs in Palestine and elsewhere denied. For them there was no such thing as a country called Palestine. The region which the British called Palestine was merely a separated part of a larger whole. Palestine was not a country and had no frontiers, only administrative boundaries; it was a group of provincial subdivisions, by no means always the same, within a larger entity. For a long time organized and articulate Arab political opinion was virtually unanimous on this point.

At first, the country of which Palestine was a part was felt to be Syria. In Ottoman times, that is, immediately before the coming of the British, Palestine had indeed been a part of a larger Syrian whole from which it was in no way distinguished whether by language, culture, education, administration, political allegiance, or any other significant respect. The dividing line between British-mandated Palestine and French-mandated Syria-Lebanon was an entirely new one and for the people of the area was wholly artificial. It was therefore natural that the nationalist leadership when it first appeared should think in Syrian terms and describe Palestine as southern Syria.

You're PWNED, again, punkass.
You made that quote up, there is no link
:eusa_liar:

Dopey, dope, the article appears in hard copy.

You're PWNED. Suck it up.
 
OP
Freeman

Freeman

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
3,080
Reaction score
128
Points
85
Dopey dope, you lied to everyone in suggesting the Pallies were betrayed by the British in not giving the Pallies a state when the Pallies' own Muslim brethren denied them a state for 700 years.

And, you know less than nothing about the Balfour Declaration. Volumes have been written on the subject matter.

You're such an embarrassment, it isn't even funny.
goofy!
there were no states in the past, there were kingdoms and empires.
wake up pigheaded

which law allow mandatory to give lands to aliens despite native citizens? no answer
PWND again

Dumb dumb, Syria and Lebanon existed as independent vilayets under Ottoman rule. But, the Ottomans denied independence to the Pallies.

Furthermore, when the Muslim Turks implemented land reform, the increased taxes forced Pallies to forfeit any small land holdings they may have owned.

Thus, in addition to Muslims denying Pallies independence for 700 years, they also ripped them off and forced them to lose their land.

Don't lie, sick boy.
LIES

Syria was created as a French mandate and attained independence in April 1946, as a parliamentary republic
-Wiki
same thing for Lebanon.

Palestine was invaded by the Aliens.
 

Marc39

Rookie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
10,018
Reaction score
204
Points
0
goofy!
there were no states in the past, there were kingdoms and empires.
wake up pigheaded

which law allow mandatory to give lands to aliens despite native citizens? no answer
PWND again

Dumb dumb, Syria and Lebanon existed as independent vilayets under Ottoman rule. But, the Ottomans denied independence to the Pallies.

Furthermore, when the Muslim Turks implemented land reform, the increased taxes forced Pallies to forfeit any small land holdings they may have owned.

Thus, in addition to Muslims denying Pallies independence for 700 years, they also ripped them off and forced them to lose their land.

Don't lie, sick boy.
LIES

Syria was created as a French mandate and attained independence in April 1946, as a parliamentary republic
-Wiki
same thing for Lebanon.

Palestine was invaded by the Aliens.

You dumbass, France wanted Palestine to be included in the Syrian Mandate, since Palestine was part of Syria for centuries.

Ultimately, it was agreed among the World War I Allies who controlled the Ottoman Empire after the war that Palestine would be the Jewish homeland, given the historical connection with the Jews.

You know less than nothing and your little Wikipedia links are an embarrassment, troll.
 

Jos

Rookie
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
7,412
Reaction score
757
Points
0
Dopey, dope, the article appears in hard copy.

You're PWNED. Suck it up.
So where did you get the ¨quote¨ from?:eusa_liar:
images

Dude, accept defeat graciously like the little bitch you are and move on.

You've been PWNED, repeatedly. Give it a rest.
Where did you get the ¨quote¨ from? You have only defeated your self if you cant back up what you claim, you are a Liar
 

Marc39

Rookie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
10,018
Reaction score
204
Points
0
So where did you get the ¨quote¨ from?:eusa_liar:
images

Dude, accept defeat graciously like the little bitch you are and move on.

You've been PWNED, repeatedly. Give it a rest.
Where did you get the ¨quote¨ from? You have only defeated your self if you cant back up what you claim, you are a Liar

Bernard Lewis, "The PLO"

Allow me to demolish you further...
Palestine was not a country and had no frontiers, only administrative boundaries; it was a group of provincial subdivisions, by no means always the same, within a larger entity
For Arabs, term Palestine was unacceptable. For Muslims it was alien and irrelevant.... The main objection for them was that it seemed to assert a separate entity which politically conscious Arabs in Palestine and elsewhere denied. For them there was no such thing as a country called Palestine. The region which the British called Palestine was merely a separated part of a larger whole. Palestine was not a country and had no frontiers, only administrative boundaries; it was a group of provincial subdivisions, by no means always the same, within a larger entity. For a long time organized and articulate Arab political opinion was virtually unanimous on this point.

At first, the country of which Palestine was a part was felt to be Syria. In Ottoman times, that is, immediately before the coming of the British, Palestine had indeed been a part of a larger Syrian whole from which it was in no way distinguished whether by language, culture, education, administration, political allegiance, or any other significant respect. The dividing line between British-mandated Palestine and French-mandated Syria-Lebanon was an entirely new one and for the people of the area was wholly artificial. It was therefore natural that the nationalist leadership when it first appeared should think in Syrian terms and describe Palestine as southern Syria.

The emergence of a distinctive Palestinian entity is thus a product of the last decades and may be seen as the joint creation of Israel and the Arab states—the one by extruding the Arabs of Palestine, the others by refusing to accept them. According to pan-Arab or even pan-Syrian ideologies, Palestinian Arabs moving to Lebanon, Syria, or Jordan should still have been men in their own country, moving from one province to another. The bitter experience of the past twenty-seven years has shown that this is not so and, as so often before, deprivation has created a new sense of identity based on shared experience, desperation, and aspiration.

Until the very end of the Ottoman Empire the great majority of the inhabitants of Palestine, as of the neighboring countries, remained loyal subjects of the Ottoman Sultan, whom they saw not as the representative of an alien Turkish domination over Arabs—this was a reading back into the past of later ideologies—but as the legitimate Muslim sovereign of a Muslim state in which Arab, Turkish, and other Muslims were equal citizens. The famous Arab revolt was largely an affair of the Hejaz, with some support from small groups of Syrian, Lebanese, and Iraqi intellectuals and officers. The Arabs of Palestine were hardly affected at all, and the rebels advanced from Arabia through Transjordan toward Damascus without touching the West Bank.

After the end of the Ottoman Empire and the establishment of the mandated territories, the political protest of the inhabitants of these territories against foreign rule and in Palestine against Jewish immigration and aspirations was expressed partly through Islamic religious organizations—the Supreme Muslim Council with its leader, the chief Mufti—and partly through nationalist ideologies sometimes expressed in Syrian but more commonly in Arab terms. The focus of loyalty was not Palestine but a larger entity of which the country defined and ruled by the British was seen to be a part. This remained true right through the period of the Mandate despite a number of changes, and the idea of a separate Palestinian state won little support among Palestinians who saw in this an imperialist device to divide the Arabs and thus preserve British power.

Palestine was not a country and had no frontiers, only administrative boundaries; it was a group of provincial subdivisions, by no means always the same, within a larger entity.

It's all over for you. You're PWNED.
 

Jos

Rookie
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
7,412
Reaction score
757
Points
0
Anyone with a search engine can see your a Liar and a Fake, you make things up and convince yourself that it's true:cuckoo::eusa_liar:
 

Marc39

Rookie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
10,018
Reaction score
204
Points
0
Anyone with a search engine can see your a Liar and a Fake, you make things up and convince yourself that it's true:cuckoo::eusa_liar:

Except, historical literature does not necessarily have links, dumb dumb.

Do yourself a favor and go away. You've been PWNED, big time.

Remember: I will always destroy you because I'm intellectually superior.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top