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

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
10,457
Reaction score
2,785
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Toddsterpatriot, abu afak, et al

BLUF: Like in many of your replies, you get some basics wrong because → you look at them in isolation of everything else, as if they stand alone and are forever beyond the erosion of time.

The next map in the series is a rendering of the U.N. Partition Plan, which would have divided the British mandate into two equal parts, one part for Arabs and one part for Jews.
They could not divide the British Mandate. The British Mandate was a temporarily appointed administration. It had no land, borders, or sovereignty.
Like Palestine.
(COMMENT)

The Allied Powers, in conjunction with the League of Nations DID give the Mandate of Palestine territorial limits. The generalized limits were initially decided at the San Remo Conference → conforming to the Franco-British Treaty of 1920 → and directly applied by the League of Nations Palestine Order in Council of 1920. These territorial limits were outlined in general the limits of the Order:
[/FONT]Administration of Palestine and Trans-Jordan[FONT=arial] said:
Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between latitude 30° N. and 33° N., Longitude 34° 30 E. and 35° 30' E.

On the south it is bounded by Egyptian and Saudi Arabian territory, on the east by Trans-Jordan, on the north by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and the Lebanon, and on the west by the Mediterranean.

The boundaries are described as follows:--
  • South.--From a point west of Rafa on the Mediterranean to a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba.

    East.--From a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba up the centre of the Wadi Araba, the Dead Sea, and the River Jordan, to the junction of the latter with the River Yarmuk, thence up the centre of the River Yarmuk to the Syrian frontier.

    North.--The northern boundary was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Stated briefly, the boundary runs from Ras el Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to Metulla and across the upper Jordan valley to Banias, thence to Jisr Banat Yaqub, thence along the Jordan to the Lake of Tiberias on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line.

    West.--The Mediterranean Sea.
SOURCE: Administration For the Year 1932


Remember: The Rights and Title was renounced in favor of the Allied Powers to assume in
Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne (Article 132, Treaty of Sevres).

All the limits you keep referring to as some sort of authority favoring the Arab Palestinians DID NOT apply to the Arab Palestinians:

◈ Turkey renounced, in favor of the Principal Allied Powers, all rights and title to the territory.​
◈ The Parties to the Treaties recognized the measures taken placed the future of the territories at the discretion of the Principal Allied Powers.​
◈ The Arab Palestinians were not a party to any of the treaties which set the territorial limits.​
◈ The Allied Powers made no obligation to the Arab Palestinians on the matter of territorial control or distribution. The only exception being the UK-TransJordan Treaty of 1946.​
◈ The Treaties did not set limitations on the future of the territory as decided by the Allied Powers.​

I do not recall anyone claiming that the Allied Powers extended sovereignty. However, the rights and title was remanded into the custody of the Allied Powers and NOT the Arab Palestinian.
SIGIL PAIR.png

Most Respectfully,
R
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
63,383
Reaction score
11,989
Points
2,030
Location
Chicago
RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Toddsterpatriot, abu afak, et al

BLUF: Like in many of your replies, you get some basics wrong because → you look at them in isolation of everything else, as if they stand alone and are forever beyond the erosion of time.

The next map in the series is a rendering of the U.N. Partition Plan, which would have divided the British mandate into two equal parts, one part for Arabs and one part for Jews.
They could not divide the British Mandate. The British Mandate was a temporarily appointed administration. It had no land, borders, or sovereignty.
Like Palestine.
(COMMENT)

The Allied Powers, in conjunction with the League of Nations DID give the Mandate of Palestine territorial limits. The generalized limits were initially decided at the San Remo Conference → conforming to the Franco-British Treaty of 1920 → and directly applied by the League of Nations Palestine Order in Council of 1920. These territorial limits were outlined in general the limits of the Order:


[/FONT]Administration of Palestine and Trans-Jordan[FONT=arial] said:
Palestine lies on the western edge of the continent of Asia between latitude 30° N. and 33° N., Longitude 34° 30 E. and 35° 30' E.​
On the south it is bounded by Egyptian and Saudi Arabian territory, on the east by Trans-Jordan, on the north by the French Mandated Territories of Syria and the Lebanon, and on the west by the Mediterranean.​
The boundaries are described as follows:--​
  • South.--From a point west of Rafa on the Mediterranean to a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba.

    East.--From a point two miles west of Aqaba in the Gulf of Aqaba up the centre of the Wadi Araba, the Dead Sea, and the River Jordan, to the junction of the latter with the River Yarmuk, thence up the centre of the River Yarmuk to the Syrian frontier.

    North.--The northern boundary was laid down by the Anglo-French Convention of the 23rd December, 1920, and its delimitation was ratified in 1923. Stated briefly, the boundary runs from Ras el Naqura on the Mediterranean eastwards to Metulla and across the upper Jordan valley to Banias, thence to Jisr Banat Yaqub, thence along the Jordan to the Lake of Tiberias on to El Hamme station on the Samakh-Deraa railway line.

    West.--The Mediterranean Sea.



Remember: The Rights and Title was renounced in favor of the Allied Powers to assume in Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne (Article 132, Treaty of Sevres).

All the limits you keep referring to as some sort of authority favoring the Arab Palestinians DID NOT apply to the Arab Palestinians:

◈ Turkey renounced, in favor of the Principal Allied Powers, all rights and title to the territory.​
◈ The Parties to the Treaties recognized the measures taken placed the future of the territories at the discretion of the Principal Allied Powers.​
◈ The Arab Palestinians were not a party to any of the treaties which set the territorial limits.​
◈ The Allied Powers made no obligation to the Arab Palestinians on the matter of territorial control or distribution. The only exception being the UK-TransJordan Treaty of 1946.​
◈ The Treaties did not set limitations on the future of the territory as decided by the Allied Powers.​

I do not recall anyone claiming that the Allied Powers extended sovereignty. However, the rights and title was remanded into the custody of the Allied Powers and NOT the Arab Palestinian.
SIGIL PAIR.png

Most Respectfully,
R
It had no land, borders, or sovereignty.

Allow me to clarify....... Like the nation of Palestine.
 

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
10,457
Reaction score
2,785
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Toddsterpatriot, abu afak, et al,
Article 16 does not mention the Allied Powers.
(COMMENT)

Each "article" of the treaty is a binding pledge between (in this case) the Allied Powers as one group and the Ottoman/Turkish Republic. The treaty does not have to be redundant and mention the parties every single time. At the opening of the treaty, it reads:

The Lausanne Treaty Opening Introduction said:
The Lausanne Treaty was signed on 24 July 1923 by the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, and the "Serbo-Croat-Slovene" State on one part and Turkey on the other.
SOURCE: Treaty of Lausanne Opening Introduction


BTW, custody does not equal ownership.
(COMMENT)

Turkey on the one hand - renders the "Rights and Title" over the territory to the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, and the "Serbo-Croat-Slovene" State on the other hand.

The Dictionary of Legal Terms said:
OWNERSHIP
exclusive right of possessing, enjoying, and disposing of a thing; often said to include the concept of possession and that of title, thus to be broader than either.
SOURCE: Dictionary of Legal Terms A Simplified Guide to the Language of Law • by Steven H. Gifis 3rd ed. • Page 341 • © Copyright 1998, 1993, 1983 by Barron's Educational Series, Inc.

Your continued protest on this point is simply a frivolous complaint. Only YOU raised the term "ownership," → no one else used that term. "Ownership" is generally used relevant to personal and private property. What we are talking about in the Treaty of Lausanne is "the future of these territories"
(Palestine in this case) "being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned." By bring-up "ownership" you are injecting an entirely new topic into the discussion. While there are some "ownership" issues involved, at various times, we have not discussed those issues to any degree in quite some time.

SIGIL PAIR.png

Most Respectfully,
R
 

abu afak

ALLAH SNACKBAR!
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
3,410
Reaction score
910
Points
315
RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Toddsterpatriot, abu afak, et al,
Article 16 does not mention the Allied Powers.
(COMMENT)

Each "article" of the treaty is a binding pledge between (in this case) the Allied Powers as one group and the Ottoman/Turkish Republic. The treaty does not have to be redundant and mention the parties every single time. At the opening of the treaty, it reads:



The Lausanne Treaty Opening Introduction said:
The Lausanne Treaty was signed on 24 July 1923 by the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, and the "Serbo-Croat-Slovene" State on one part and Turkey on the other.​


BTW, custody does not equal ownership.
(COMMENT)

Turkey on the one hand - renders the "Rights and Title" over the territory to the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, and the "Serbo-Croat-Slovene" State on the other hand.


The Dictionary of Legal Terms said:
OWNERSHIP

exclusive right of possessing, enjoying, and disposing of a thing; often said to include the concept of possession and that of title, thus to be broader than either.

SOURCE: Dictionary of Legal Terms A Simplified Guide to the Language of Law • by Steven H. Gifis 3rd ed. • Page 341 • © Copyright 1998, 1993, 1983 by Barron's Educational Series, Inc.


Your continued protest on this point is simply a frivolous complaint. Only YOU raised the term "ownership," → no one else used that term. "Ownership" is generally used relevant to personal and private property. What we are talking about in the Treaty of Lausanne is "the future of these territories" (Palestine in this case) "being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned." By bring-up "ownership" you are injecting an entirely new topic into the discussion. While there are some "ownership" issues involved, at various times, we have not discussed those issues to any degree in quite some time.

SIGIL PAIR.png

Most Respectfully,
R
"Owned"

App 2/3 of what became partition Israel was not owned by anyone except the Ottoman empire. It was called miri/belonging to the Emir.
This state land passed from the Ottomans, to the British, to the Jews.
That would include the Negev, alone fully 50% of what would become Israel.
Most of the rest of Israel and proposed Palestine was owned by NON-Resident rich Arabs who lived in Damascus, Cairo, etc
As no one with money would live in stinking/malarial 'palestine.'

`
 

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
60,339
Reaction score
2,640
Points
1,815
Turkey on the one hand - renders the "Rights and Title" over the territory to the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, and the "Serbo-Croat-Slovene" State on the other hand.
Not true.

SECTION II .
NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.

Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.


The territories were transferred to the new states, i.e. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.

I can say that the US is "my country" even though I privately own a very small part of it. A home owner, a renter, or a homeless person have the same right to their country by the virtue of their nationality. Collectively everybody owns their country.
 

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
10,457
Reaction score
2,785
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I can't waste anymore time with you on this. You have a reading comprehension problem. This is was we call a "hail Mary" pass. If it was just that simple, the issues would have been resolved already (decades ago).

Turkey on the one hand - renders the "Rights and Title" over the territory to the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, and the "Serbo-Croat-Slovene" State on the other hand.
Not true.
SECTION II .
NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.
Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.


The territories were transferred to the new states, i.e. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.

I can say that the US is "my country" even though I privately own a very small part of it. A home owner, a renter, or a homeless person have the same right to their country by the virtue of their nationality. Collectively everybody owns their country.
(COMMENT)

All it means is that, the people will assume the nationality of whatever country is assigned to the territory. It has nothing to do with the "transfer." It does not establish any states. In fact, the territory that was west of the Jordan River was never transferred to any authority. Interim government assumed sovereignty over the territory through the right of self-determination. The Arab Palestinians rejected the recommendation and the territory was occupied by constituents of the Arab League.

SIGIL PAIR.png

Most Respectfully,
R
 

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
60,339
Reaction score
2,640
Points
1,815
RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I can't waste anymore time with you on this. You have a reading comprehension problem. This is was we call a "hail Mary" pass. If it was just that simple, the issues would have been resolved already (decades ago).

Turkey on the one hand - renders the "Rights and Title" over the territory to the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, and the "Serbo-Croat-Slovene" State on the other hand.
Not true.
SECTION II .
NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.
Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.


The territories were transferred to the new states, i.e. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.

I can say that the US is "my country" even though I privately own a very small part of it. A home owner, a renter, or a homeless person have the same right to their country by the virtue of their nationality. Collectively everybody owns their country.
(COMMENT)

All it means is that, the people will assume the nationality of whatever country is assigned to the territory. It has nothing to do with the "transfer." It does not establish any states. In fact, the territory that was west of the Jordan River was never transferred to any authority. Interim government assumed sovereignty over the territory through the right of self-determination. The Arab Palestinians rejected the recommendation and the territory was occupied by constituents of the Arab League.

SIGIL PAIR.png

Most Respectfully,
R
All it means is that, the people will assume the nationality of whatever country is assigned to the territory. It has nothing to do with the "transfer." It does not establish any states.
Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
38,346
Reaction score
4,479
Points
1,130
RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

I can't waste anymore time with you on this. You have a reading comprehension problem. This is was we call a "hail Mary" pass. If it was just that simple, the issues would have been resolved already (decades ago).

Turkey on the one hand - renders the "Rights and Title" over the territory to the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, and the "Serbo-Croat-Slovene" State on the other hand.
Not true.
SECTION II .
NATIONALITY.
ARTICLE 30.
Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.


The territories were transferred to the new states, i.e. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.

I can say that the US is "my country" even though I privately own a very small part of it. A home owner, a renter, or a homeless person have the same right to their country by the virtue of their nationality. Collectively everybody owns their country.
(COMMENT)

All it means is that, the people will assume the nationality of whatever country is assigned to the territory. It has nothing to do with the "transfer." It does not establish any states. In fact, the territory that was west of the Jordan River was never transferred to any authority. Interim government assumed sovereignty over the territory through the right of self-determination. The Arab Palestinians rejected the recommendation and the territory was occupied by constituents of the Arab League.

SIGIL PAIR.png

Most Respectfully,
R
All it means is that, the people will assume the nationality of whatever country is assigned to the territory. It has nothing to do with the "transfer." It does not establish any states.
Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.
Actually, the ''talking point'' is substantiated.

You're still ducking the question.
 

Lee Edwin

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2020
Messages
155
Reaction score
111
Points
53
RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
⁜→ Hollie, et al,

It was understood at the time, that these were considered part of the self-governing institutions.

When were the British ever tasked with establishing a post office, monetary system, etc.?
(OBSERVATIONS)

In 1948, there was no internet. In many countries, the Post Office ran all types of communication. For a start-up government (TurnKey Operation), the Mandatory Power had to help Israel to have a seamless transition between what the British were running and its handover to the Israelis.

  • An internationally recognized bank had to be put in place to that there would be an Israeli currency on day one, with an umbilical to the international level exchange.
  • The utilities and transportation system, heretofore paid by the British, had to be reckoned with, so that trains, water, electricity, and shipping could be maintained.
There were actions, behind the scenes, that introduced Israel to these critical function. The Arab Palestinians declined to participate.

The military construction engineers, among many other things, built the Allenby Bridge and many Trestles.

The Military, protected many of the assets that were used to establish powerlines and water systems, that would have been stolen if left to the Arabs.

Then, there were organizations like the Black Hand that needed to be dealt with in a more permanent way.

See: United Nations Palestine Commission during its deliberations from 9 January to 17 May 1948. It will give you a better insight into the meaning of "establishing self-governing institutions."

Most Respectfully,
R
How much military force is required to establish a post office, monetary system, etc.?

I was only using these as examples. Palestine was a functioning society. They had districts centered around population centers and local governments. The only thing they needed were some national institutions, like a post office, for example. Britain had its occu...er...ahh...Mandate for thirty years and created nothing. The Palestinians would have been better off without the administrative assistance and advice of the British.
Palestine didn‘t exist. It was merely Britain’s name for the British Mandate—British Mandatory Palestine. In the Ottoman Empire, no entity palestine existed, and British palestine ceased to exist with Israeli statehood.
 

Lee Edwin

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2020
Messages
155
Reaction score
111
Points
53
RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: It is very convenient for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) to selectively alter history, omit the actual annexation process, and customary practice so that they can claim it was not sovereign territory.

Unification of the Two Banks said:
On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.​
Unification of the Two Banks said:
The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan now included nearly one and a half million people, more than half a million of whom were refugees evicted from Jewish-occupied Palestine. All automatically became citizens of Jordan, a right that had first been offered in December 1949 to all Palestinians who wished to claim it. Although the Arab League opposed this plan, and no other Arab government followed Jordan’s lead, the Hashemite Kingdom offered the possibility of normal life for many people who would have otherwise remained stateless refugees.​

ENDNOTE
Jordanian Parliament Resolution Regarding the Annexation of the West Bank - English Text Jordanian Parliament Resolution Regarding the Annexation of the West Bank - English Text:

It is entangled in the complexities that have arisen since more than a decade before the Jordanian Sovereign Territory (JST) of the West Bank became effectively controlled by the Israelis.
Jordan occupied the West Bank. It was not Jordanian sovereign territory.
(COMMENT)

The West Bank and part of Jerusalem were annexed by Jordan. It does not matter what the UN may say about recognition. The self-determination and the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States (inter-American); December 26, 1933, make it clear that foreign recognition is irrelevant.

Only the United Kingdom formally recognized the annexation of the West Bank, de facto in the case of East Jerusalem.[31] The United States Department of State also recognized this extension of Jordanian sovereignty.[32][33] Pakistan is often claimed to have recognized Jordan's annexation too, but this is dubious.[34][35]
SOURCE:​
United States Department of State / Foreign relations of the United States, 1950. page 921, The Near East, South Asia, and Africa (1950)​
IT IS WHAT IT IS. The problem with this argument is that the HoAP position on whether or not Jordan extended the sovereignty is a loser either way. If the West Bank was not Annex in 1950, it then still be under the UN International Trustee System and the HoAP could not show Arab control either way.
SIGIL PAIR.png


Most Respectfully,
R
Jordan occupied the West Bank. It is illegal to annex occupied territory.

Whose territory did Jordan occupy? The UN? Or was it Palestine?
Palestine, the name of the British Mandate, no longer existed in 1948 with Israeli statehood. When Jordan seized in the ‘48 War what was internationally known as Judea and Samaria, ancient Jewish land, Jordan called the territory “west bank“ (of the Jordan River), not “palestine.”
 

Lee Edwin

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2020
Messages
155
Reaction score
111
Points
53
Turkey on the one hand - renders the "Rights and Title" over the territory to the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece, Romania, and the "Serbo-Croat-Slovene" State on the other hand.
Not true.

SECTION II .​
NATIONALITY.​
ARTICLE 30.​
Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.


The territories were transferred to the new states, i.e. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.

I can say that the US is "my country" even though I privately own a very small part of it. A home owner, a renter, or a homeless person have the same right to their country by the virtue of their nationality. Collectively everybody owns their country.
Whose country?
7F02A21D-AE05-4D28-88A2-4DD35CC4F11A.jpeg
 

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2009
Messages
60,339
Reaction score
2,640
Points
1,815
RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
⁜→ Hollie, et al,

It was understood at the time, that these were considered part of the self-governing institutions.

When were the British ever tasked with establishing a post office, monetary system, etc.?
(OBSERVATIONS)

In 1948, there was no internet. In many countries, the Post Office ran all types of communication. For a start-up government (TurnKey Operation), the Mandatory Power had to help Israel to have a seamless transition between what the British were running and its handover to the Israelis.

  • An internationally recognized bank had to be put in place to that there would be an Israeli currency on day one, with an umbilical to the international level exchange.
  • The utilities and transportation system, heretofore paid by the British, had to be reckoned with, so that trains, water, electricity, and shipping could be maintained.
There were actions, behind the scenes, that introduced Israel to these critical function. The Arab Palestinians declined to participate.

The military construction engineers, among many other things, built the Allenby Bridge and many Trestles.

The Military, protected many of the assets that were used to establish powerlines and water systems, that would have been stolen if left to the Arabs.

Then, there were organizations like the Black Hand that needed to be dealt with in a more permanent way.

See: United Nations Palestine Commission during its deliberations from 9 January to 17 May 1948. It will give you a better insight into the meaning of "establishing self-governing institutions."

Most Respectfully,
R
How much military force is required to establish a post office, monetary system, etc.?

I was only using these as examples. Palestine was a functioning society. They had districts centered around population centers and local governments. The only thing they needed were some national institutions, like a post office, for example. Britain had its occu...er...ahh...Mandate for thirty years and created nothing. The Palestinians would have been better off without the administrative assistance and advice of the British.
Palestine didn‘t exist. It was merely Britain’s name for the British Mandate—British Mandatory Palestine. In the Ottoman Empire, no entity palestine existed, and British palestine ceased to exist with Israeli statehood.
Another one spouting Israeli talking points.

We already have plenty of those.
 

Lee Edwin

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2020
Messages
155
Reaction score
111
Points
53
RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
⁜→ Hollie, et al,

It was understood at the time, that these were considered part of the self-governing institutions.

When were the British ever tasked with establishing a post office, monetary system, etc.?
(OBSERVATIONS)

In 1948, there was no internet. In many countries, the Post Office ran all types of communication. For a start-up government (TurnKey Operation), the Mandatory Power had to help Israel to have a seamless transition between what the British were running and its handover to the Israelis.

  • An internationally recognized bank had to be put in place to that there would be an Israeli currency on day one, with an umbilical to the international level exchange.
  • The utilities and transportation system, heretofore paid by the British, had to be reckoned with, so that trains, water, electricity, and shipping could be maintained.
There were actions, behind the scenes, that introduced Israel to these critical function. The Arab Palestinians declined to participate.

The military construction engineers, among many other things, built the Allenby Bridge and many Trestles.

The Military, protected many of the assets that were used to establish powerlines and water systems, that would have been stolen if left to the Arabs.

Then, there were organizations like the Black Hand that needed to be dealt with in a more permanent way.

See: United Nations Palestine Commission during its deliberations from 9 January to 17 May 1948. It will give you a better insight into the meaning of "establishing self-governing institutions."

Most Respectfully,
R
How much military force is required to establish a post office, monetary system, etc.?

I was only using these as examples. Palestine was a functioning society. They had districts centered around population centers and local governments. The only thing they needed were some national institutions, like a post office, for example. Britain had its occu...er...ahh...Mandate for thirty years and created nothing. The Palestinians would have been better off without the administrative assistance and advice of the British.
Palestine didn‘t exist. It was merely Britain’s name for the British Mandate—British Mandatory Palestine. In the Ottoman Empire, no entity palestine existed, and British palestine ceased to exist with Israeli statehood.
Another one spouting Israeli talking points.

We already have plenty of those.
Eminent Arab historian Dr. Philip Hitti: Palestine never actually existed...

5C6D72FD-FD2A-4A18-A252-D1E4D60DE1A5.jpeg
 

Lee Edwin

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2020
Messages
155
Reaction score
111
Points
53
RE: The Official Discussion Thread for who is considered indiginous to Palestine?
⁜→ Hollie, et al,

It was understood at the time, that these were considered part of the self-governing institutions.

When were the British ever tasked with establishing a post office, monetary system, etc.?
(OBSERVATIONS)

In 1948, there was no internet. In many countries, the Post Office ran all types of communication. For a start-up government (TurnKey Operation), the Mandatory Power had to help Israel to have a seamless transition between what the British were running and its handover to the Israelis.

  • An internationally recognized bank had to be put in place to that there would be an Israeli currency on day one, with an umbilical to the international level exchange.
  • The utilities and transportation system, heretofore paid by the British, had to be reckoned with, so that trains, water, electricity, and shipping could be maintained.
There were actions, behind the scenes, that introduced Israel to these critical function. The Arab Palestinians declined to participate.

The military construction engineers, among many other things, built the Allenby Bridge and many Trestles.

The Military, protected many of the assets that were used to establish powerlines and water systems, that would have been stolen if left to the Arabs.

Then, there were organizations like the Black Hand that needed to be dealt with in a more permanent way.

See: United Nations Palestine Commission during its deliberations from 9 January to 17 May 1948. It will give you a better insight into the meaning of "establishing self-governing institutions."

Most Respectfully,
R
How much military force is required to establish a post office, monetary system, etc.?

I was only using these as examples. Palestine was a functioning society. They had districts centered around population centers and local governments. The only thing they needed were some national institutions, like a post office, for example. Britain had its occu...er...ahh...Mandate for thirty years and created nothing. The Palestinians would have been better off without the administrative assistance and advice of the British.
Palestine didn‘t exist. It was merely Britain’s name for the British Mandate—British Mandatory Palestine. In the Ottoman Empire, no entity palestine existed, and British palestine ceased to exist with Israeli statehood.
Another one spouting Israeli talking points.

We already have plenty of those.
Do we see any entity named palestine on this administrative map of the Ottoman Empire? Spoiler Alert: palestine didn’t exist...
3CD08CD8-B596-4841-8598-8FF9F31186A1.jpeg
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top