The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

[Shusha]

Joseph Massad: The core of Zionism is settler-colonialism, not democracy

The core of Zionism is self-determination for people in their homeland (the place that is home to them).

You are either for or against the concept of self-determination for peoples in the places they call home. Which is it?

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[rylah]

This is a typical pan-Arab revision of history, that starts from a certain date, before which they never dare to even remotely discuss. This is done for 2 purposes:

1. Sell the peaceful coexistence lie, and hide the responsibility of the Arab Pogroms in motivating the native Jewish population to organize politically and militarily with the help of the diaspora as a response.
2. Hide the ruling Arab elite's responsibility in causing chaos by both trying to eat the cake and leave it whole, through an attempt to gain wealth by sale of lands for astronomical prices, while at the same time inciting the population of Arab tenants to revolt and take it back by force. And as a byproduct keep the royal Arab families in power as feudal elites, at times of power restructuring in that specific small region and the Ottoman Caliphate as whole - effectively deflecting all rage and blame at the Jewish population.

Then follows a projection of later British statements that were a result of later Arab pressure, on what was their initial position, regarding their commitment in helping the native Jewish community and that in the diaspora to organize politically for self-determination and eventual independence - change of cause and effect.

Essentially what we have is abuse by typically placing all the blame on the victim, to which the Arab dominating power structure never imagined to ever lose, because of their habit in seeing the native Jewish population as a neglectable 3rd class, convenient passive scapegoats, on whom all pressure of the Arabs could be released, as a result of their inability to actually govern (seen till today), powerlessness in face of constant Bedouin plundering, and total corruption of the Arab feudal elites that were installed by the Ottoman Caliphate.

As I've said before, that region was the most messy, mistreated and neglected of the entire Caliphate.
Blaming that on Jews is merely a symptom of a much deeper problem, which prevented them from effectively organizing politically and ordering their lives, from the times of the Muslim expansion into the region - till this day around much of the Arab world (with rare exceptions).

Q. What else did they ever do beside blaming the victim?

 

[Sixties Fan]

..The commission noted that Arab objections to Zionism were ideological, comprehensive, intense, and inflexible. In its report, it nonetheless devoted thousands of words to minute details of specific Arab grievances. It plumbed complaints that Jews, on one occasion, brought a chair to Jerusalem’s Western Wall and, on another, set up a screen there to divide male and female worshipers.

(full article online)

Love of the Land: The Hebron Riots of 1929: Consequences and Lessons - CAMERA Op-Ed

 

[P F Tinmore]

..The commission noted that Arab objections to Zionism were ideological, comprehensive, intense, and inflexible. In its report, it nonetheless devoted thousands of words to minute details of specific Arab grievances. It plumbed complaints that Jews, on one occasion, brought a chair to Jerusalem’s Western Wall and, on another, set up a screen there to divide male and female worshipers.

(full article online)

Love of the Land: The Hebron Riots of 1929: Consequences and Lessons - CAMERA Op-Ed

..The commission noted that Arab objections to Zionism were ideological, comprehensive, intense, and inflexible.

Indeed, the Palestinians were opposed to the Zionist colonization of Palestine.

Same as anyone else in the world.

 

[Hollie]

..The commission noted that Arab objections to Zionism were ideological, comprehensive, intense, and inflexible. In its report, it nonetheless devoted thousands of words to minute details of specific Arab grievances. It plumbed complaints that Jews, on one occasion, brought a chair to Jerusalem’s Western Wall and, on another, set up a screen there to divide male and female worshipers.

(full article online)

Love of the Land: The Hebron Riots of 1929: Consequences and Lessons - CAMERA Op-Ed

..The commission noted that Arab objections to Zionism were ideological, comprehensive, intense, and inflexible.

Indeed, the Palestinians were opposed to the Zionist colonization of Palestine.

Same as anyone else in the world.

Indeed, as colonizers the Arabs-Moslems would be opposed to Jews following the intent of the Mandate.

 

[Sixties Fan]

This editorial from January 1939 shows how the Muslim terrorists used the Temple Mount as a base of operations:




The idea that the Muslim world would be upset at the real desecration of the Al Aqsa Mosque by the Palestinian Arabs of the 1930s was, of course, a fantasy.

(full article online)

When Arabs used the Temple Mount as a base for terror operations ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[Sixties Fan]

Israel’s rights in the West Bank areas of Judea and Samaria did not originate with Israel’s attaining control of the area following the 1967 Six-Day War.

Long before, the Balfour Declaration issued by the British government in 1917 acknowledged the indigenous presence and historic aspirations of the Jewish people to reestablish their historic national home in Palestine. While legally the Balfour Declaration, in and of itself, was a unilateral governmental declaration, it received international legal acknowledgement and validity in a series of instruments, commencing with the 1920 San Remo Conference and Declaration by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers. San Remo encapsulated the content of the Balfour Declaration into the post-World War I arrangements dividing the former Ottoman Empire. In this way, the Principal Allied Powers finalized the territorial dispositions regarding the Jewish people in respect to Palestine and the Arabs in respect to Mesopotamia (Iraq), Syria, and Lebanon.

The San Remo Declaration stated inter alia that:

“The mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 8th [2nd] of November, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people …”

This was incorporated into Article 95 of the (unratified) Treaty of Sèvres of Aug. 10, 1920, and subsequently in the Preamble and Article 2 of the Mandate for Palestine approved by the Council of the League of Nations on July 24, 1922:

“The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”

The continued validity of these foundational legal rights encapsulated in the various international instruments predating the establishment of the United Nations was also assured under Article 80 of the United Nations Charter:

“… nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.”


(full article online)

Israel's Rights in the West Bank Under International Law

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel’s rights in the West Bank areas of Judea and Samaria did not originate with Israel’s attaining control of the area following the 1967 Six-Day War.

Long before, the Balfour Declaration issued by the British government in 1917 acknowledged the indigenous presence and historic aspirations of the Jewish people to reestablish their historic national home in Palestine. While legally the Balfour Declaration, in and of itself, was a unilateral governmental declaration, it received international legal acknowledgement and validity in a series of instruments, commencing with the 1920 San Remo Conference and Declaration by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers. San Remo encapsulated the content of the Balfour Declaration into the post-World War I arrangements dividing the former Ottoman Empire. In this way, the Principal Allied Powers finalized the territorial dispositions regarding the Jewish people in respect to Palestine and the Arabs in respect to Mesopotamia (Iraq), Syria, and Lebanon.

The San Remo Declaration stated inter alia that:

“The mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 8th [2nd] of November, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people …”

This was incorporated into Article 95 of the (unratified) Treaty of Sèvres of Aug. 10, 1920, and subsequently in the Preamble and Article 2 of the Mandate for Palestine approved by the Council of the League of Nations on July 24, 1922:

“The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”

The continued validity of these foundational legal rights encapsulated in the various international instruments predating the establishment of the United Nations was also assured under Article 80 of the United Nations Charter:

“… nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.”


(full article online)

Israel's Rights in the West Bank Under International Law

WOW, so much external interference.

 

[Shusha]

Israel’s rights in the West Bank areas of Judea and Samaria did not originate with Israel’s attaining control of the area following the 1967 Six-Day War.

Long before, the Balfour Declaration issued by the British government in 1917 acknowledged the indigenous presence and historic aspirations of the Jewish people to reestablish their historic national home in Palestine. While legally the Balfour Declaration, in and of itself, was a unilateral governmental declaration, it received international legal acknowledgement and validity in a series of instruments, commencing with the 1920 San Remo Conference and Declaration by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers. San Remo encapsulated the content of the Balfour Declaration into the post-World War I arrangements dividing the former Ottoman Empire. In this way, the Principal Allied Powers finalized the territorial dispositions regarding the Jewish people in respect to Palestine and the Arabs in respect to Mesopotamia (Iraq), Syria, and Lebanon.

The San Remo Declaration stated inter alia that:

“The mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 8th [2nd] of November, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people …”

This was incorporated into Article 95 of the (unratified) Treaty of Sèvres of Aug. 10, 1920, and subsequently in the Preamble and Article 2 of the Mandate for Palestine approved by the Council of the League of Nations on July 24, 1922:

“The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”

The continued validity of these foundational legal rights encapsulated in the various international instruments predating the establishment of the United Nations was also assured under Article 80 of the United Nations Charter:

“… nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.”


(full article online)

Israel's Rights in the West Bank Under International Law

WOW, so much external interference.

That was the entire point of the Mandate system.

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The principle of non-interference refers to the interaction between sovereign states. As far as I know, it has never been applied to non-state organizations or entities or generally to peoples seeking self-determination. Though there are some fascinating discussions being had concerning whether or not this principle applies under conditions of civil war.

 

[Hollie]

Israel’s rights in the West Bank areas of Judea and Samaria did not originate with Israel’s attaining control of the area following the 1967 Six-Day War.

Long before, the Balfour Declaration issued by the British government in 1917 acknowledged the indigenous presence and historic aspirations of the Jewish people to reestablish their historic national home in Palestine. While legally the Balfour Declaration, in and of itself, was a unilateral governmental declaration, it received international legal acknowledgement and validity in a series of instruments, commencing with the 1920 San Remo Conference and Declaration by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied Powers. San Remo encapsulated the content of the Balfour Declaration into the post-World War I arrangements dividing the former Ottoman Empire. In this way, the Principal Allied Powers finalized the territorial dispositions regarding the Jewish people in respect to Palestine and the Arabs in respect to Mesopotamia (Iraq), Syria, and Lebanon.

The San Remo Declaration stated inter alia that:

“The mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on the 8th [2nd] of November, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people …”

This was incorporated into Article 95 of the (unratified) Treaty of Sèvres of Aug. 10, 1920, and subsequently in the Preamble and Article 2 of the Mandate for Palestine approved by the Council of the League of Nations on July 24, 1922:

“The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”

The continued validity of these foundational legal rights encapsulated in the various international instruments predating the establishment of the United Nations was also assured under Article 80 of the United Nations Charter:

“… nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.”


(full article online)

Israel's Rights in the West Bank Under International Law

WOW, so much external interference.

External interference would be one description for Arab-Moslem colonization.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

..The commission noted that Arab objections to Zionism were ideological, comprehensive, intense, and inflexible. In its report, it nonetheless devoted thousands of words to minute details of specific Arab grievances. It plumbed complaints that Jews, on one occasion, brought a chair to Jerusalem’s Western Wall and, on another, set up a screen there to divide male and female worshipers.

(full article online)

Love of the Land: The Hebron Riots of 1929: Consequences and Lessons - CAMERA Op-Ed

..The commission noted that Arab objections to Zionism were ideological, comprehensive, intense, and inflexible.

Indeed, the Palestinians were opposed to the Zionist colonization of Palestine.

Same as anyone else in the world.

Doesn't complaining that the Jews brought chairs to the Western Wall, or set up a screen there to separate men an women, seem petty to you? These mainly religious complaints makes it seem like something else is really going on here.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Reviewing three Hebrew-language works about Israel’s War of Independence, Yoav Gelber begins with Eliezer Tauber’s study of the battle of Deir Yassin, long assumed to have culminated in a massacre of Arabs by the Jewish Irgun and Leḥi militias. Tauber demonstrates that (like the “massacre” in Lydda) it was nothing of the sort. Both sides, however, greatly exaggerated the number of Arab casualties for propaganda purposes, with consequences that also bear examining:

(full article online)

New Israeli Scholarship Shows That an Alleged 1948 Massacre Never Happened

 

[ph3iron]

Reviewing three Hebrew-language works about Israel’s War of Independence, Yoav Gelber begins with Eliezer Tauber’s study of the battle of Deir Yassin, long assumed to have culminated in a massacre of Arabs by the Jewish Irgun and Leḥi militias. Tauber demonstrates that (like the “massacre” in Lydda) it was nothing of the sort. Both sides, however, greatly exaggerated the number of Arab casualties for propaganda purposes, with consequences that also bear examining:

(full article online)

New Israeli Scholarship Shows That an Alleged 1948 Massacre Never Happened

I'm sure there are enough massacres to go around.
They say Brits are at the bottom of everything.
In this case Rothschild and other bankers created Israel in the first place.
Threw out our only Mideast WWII supporters who had been there for 2000 years.
And we whine about Christopher Steele!!!!

 

[Sixties Fan]

01/21 Links Pt2: Polish Jews’ pre-Holocaust plea to Chamberlain: Let us into Palestine; Netanyahu to world leaders: Important they remember where we came from ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[Sixties Fan]

I had seen similar reports but this specific one is new to me.

It shows that Arabs flocked to Palestine because of Jewish economic success, and that there was essentially no negative effects of Jewish immigration.

Arab villages near Jewish population centers were shown to have improved in every way compared to the villages further away, which looked as they were a hundred years beforehand.

Similarly, Arab houses near Jewish communities went up in value, those further away lost value.

Some of it is a little hard to read, and most of it was not digitized.

From JTA, January 31, 1934:

(full article online)

1934 survey of Palestine showed how Jews helped Arabs; Arabs flocked to live near Jewish areas ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[Sixties Fan]

After I posted about the 1934 economic survey of Palestine that showed that Jewish investment had brought great benefit to the Arabs of the region, including controlling malaria, I was shown a remarkable pair of maps.

One showed where the major malaria-infested lands of Palestine were as of 1920, according to a British report.

(full article online)

Eradicating malaria from Palestine was another Zionist colonialist plot! ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[Sixties Fan]

Not only was Jerusalem never the capital of Muslim Palestine - it wasn't even a PART of what Muslims called Palestine ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[Sixties Fan]

I am looking at the beginning of Rashid Khalidi's "The Hundred Years' War on Palestine: A History of Settler Colonialism and Resistance, 1917–2017."

Khalidi exaggerates the influence of the tiny number of Arab nationalists, specifically Palestinian Arab nationalists, before 1917. He doesn't mention that the Arab nationalism that did exist was a result of Christian missionary influence and British attempts to subvert the Ottoman Empire - it was never a native Arab desire, and most Arabs were loyal Ottoman subjects.

When one sees a paragraph like this, it brings up some questions:


So rule by the British was "alien rule" but by the Ottoman Turks wasn't. Why not? If Palestinians wanted independence so much, shouldn't they have been equally upset at the Ottomans as they were the British? Wasn't the Ottoman Empire every bit as colonialist as the British?

(full article online)

If Palestinians were a nation, why did they accept Ottoman control? ~ Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

 

[P F Tinmore]

Why Israel Has No ‘Right to Exist’

Apologists for Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians claim the state has a “right to exist” in an effort to legitimize the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

Zionists taking it upon themselves to try to defend Israel’s crimes against the Palestinian people frequently level the charge that its critics are attempting to “delegitimize” the self-described “Jewish state”. Israel, they counter, has a “right to exist”. But they are mistaken.

This is not to single out Israel. There is no such thing as a state’s “right to exist”, period. No such right is recognized under international law. Nor could there logically be any such right. The very concept is absurd. Individuals, not abstract political entities, have rights.

The right to self-determination, unlike the absurd concept of a state’s “right to exist”, is recognized under international law. It is a right that is explicitly guaranteed, for example, under the Charter of the United Nations, to which the state of Israel is party.

The proper framework for discussion therefore is the right to self-determination, and it is precisely to obfuscate this truth that the propaganda claim that Israel has a “right to exist” is frequently made. It is necessary for Israel’s apologists to so shift the framework for discussion because, in the framework of the right to self-determination, it is obviously Israel that rejects the rights of the Palestinians and not vice versa.

And it is not only in the ongoing occupation of Palestinian territory that Israel’s rejectionism is manifest. This rejection of Palestinians’ rights was also manifest in the very means by which Israel was established.

Why Israel Has No 'Right to Exist'