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

[P F Tinmore]

Trans-Jordan was added to the Mandate for Palestine but was a completely different territory from the outset and destined to repay the Hashemites and their followers (Bedouins not Palestinians), who had supported the British against the Turks in the Hejaz (where Mecca is located) during WW1 after they lost the Hejaz to King Saud.

Your post is just a bunch of Zionist propaganda with no basis in fact. Even the note to the Mandate describes Trans Jordan as a separate territory whose border is the eastern boundary of PALESTINE, a separate territory. Clearly, if Trans Jordan's border was the eastern border of Palestine, it could not possibly have been considered Palestine.

"Zionst Propaganda"?
TAKE YOUR PICK AKHMED!

mandate for palestine - Google Search

I just used the First of Many/MOST.
-

 

[montelatici]

Response to Shusha's post:

He did mention that people who have never been to the holy land and have no ancestors from there should "return" to Israel simply because they share a religion. As stated in my video, Judaism is a religion not a nationality. The right to a nationality under international law does not apply to religious groups. It only applies to people who are tied to the land by habitual residence, or what the Montevideo Conference calls a permanent population.

You seem to have missed the whole point of the video. The Jewish people, the people of Israel, ARE a nationality. The Jewish people, the people of Israel, are tied to the land. The Jewish people, the people of Israel, were the permanent population. It is our homeland, our history, our birthright. (It may be other people's land, and history and birthright.) But it is also OURS.

The whole point of your video is to claim an intergenerational, lasting, commitment to return to the homeland from which a group was forceably removed -- to claim an absolute universal right to return to your homeland through the generations even if you, personally, have never been to that homeland. The Mandate for Palestine is rooted in this concept -- the right to re-constitute your nation in the place of your origin.

It is immoral to claim a right for one people while simultaneously denying it to another. It doesn't matter what excuse you give or how you argue it or how you frame it. The concept of an intergenerational, lasting, commitment to return to your place of origin and homeland is the same whether you are speaking of Palestinians or Jews or any other people who have experienced a "Nakba". Excluding any group from having that concept apply to them is immoral and wrong.

What was immoral was the eviction of the native people of Palestine by Europeans whose ties to the Middle East were non-existent.

Response to Shusha's post:

He did mention that people who have never been to the holy land and have no ancestors from there should "return" to Israel simply because they share a religion. As stated in my video, Judaism is a religion not a nationality. The right to a nationality under international law does not apply to religious groups. It only applies to people who are tied to the land by habitual residence, or what the Montevideo Conference calls a permanent population.

You seem to have missed the whole point of the video. The Jewish people, the people of Israel, ARE a nationality. The Jewish people, the people of Israel, are tied to the land. The Jewish people, the people of Israel, were the permanent population. It is our homeland, our history, our birthright. (It may be other people's land, and history and birthright.) But it is also OURS.

The whole point of your video is to claim an intergenerational, lasting, commitment to return to the homeland from which a group was forceably removed -- to claim an absolute universal right to return to your homeland through the generations even if you, personally, have never been to that homeland. The Mandate for Palestine is rooted in this concept -- the right to re-constitute your nation in the place of your origin.

It is immoral to claim a right for one people while simultaneously denying it to another. It doesn't matter what excuse you give or how you argue it or how you frame it. The concept of an intergenerational, lasting, commitment to return to your place of origin and homeland is the same whether you are speaking of Palestinians or Jews or any other people who have experienced a "Nakba". Excluding any group from having that concept apply to them is immoral and wrong.

The permanent population of Palestine are the people of Palestine. Not Europeans, who had happened to adopt Judaism.

The permanent population of Palestine are the people who have always lived there and converted to the various religions that held sway in the area over the centuries.

If there was a right to reconstitute one's nation at the place of origin, the American Indians would be allotted most of the eastern United States, you silly goose, with far more justification than the Europeans that colonized Palestine.

 

[Shusha]

And illegal too. But that is what is happening to the Palestinians now.

The only remedy for that injustice is the right of return and a one state solution.

You are avoiding the issue. You posted a video, which you appear to support, which states that PEOPLE have an absolute, inalienable, universal, intergenerational right to return to their place of origin (their homeland) and have self-determination there.

Oh, except the JEWISH PEOPLE. They, of all the peoples of this world, are excluded from having that right.

Once again, I am supporting the rights of both people, which I consistently do, while you are actively denying the rights of one people, which you consistently do.

 

[montelatici]

No people have the right to expel the native people from the land they inhabit to make room for people from another continent.

 

[Shusha]

The permanent population of Palestine are the people who have always lived there and converted to the various religions that held sway in the area over the centuries.

But according to your premise, they don't live there anymore. Thus, they are no longer Palestinian. They are Americans, and Syrians, and Jordanians, and Europeans. As are the generations of their descendants.

If there was a right to reconstitute one's nation at the place of origin, the American Indians would be allotted most of the eastern United States, you silly goose, with far more justification than the Europeans that colonized Palestine.

And what makes you think I don't believe the First Nations peoples SHOULD re-constitute their national homeland on their ancestral lands? I do. Its happening here in Canada. And I fully support it.

See, my moral values and "rules" are consistent across the board. They apply to the Jewish people, the Palestinian people, the First Nations peoples, Tibetans, Kurds, Catalans, to all peoples seeking self-determination.

Yours, on the other hand, are applied haphazardly depending on which people you are talking about. With the Palestinians you claim that they have the right of return and self-determination. But you scoff at, actually mock, the right of American First Nations to have self-determination on land they clearly have claim to. You pick and choose your moral values based on who you think "deserves" them. You think the Palestinians are deserving, so you support their right of return*. But you think neither the Jewish people, nor the First Nations peoples are deserving, so you invent excuses for them that you do not apply elsewhere.



*actually, I don't believe you actually think the Pals are deserving. I think you believe the Jewish people are not and must be prevented so you frame your remarks as positive towards the Pals, but its really formulated based on a negative towards Jews.

 

[Shusha]

No people have the right to expel the native people from the land they inhabit to make room for people from another continent.

Not the subject of conversation. We are discussing the right of a people expelled as a result of conflict to return.

 

[montelatici]

The Europeans were not able to evict all the native people, the Palestinians that remain in historical Palestine (Israel+the Occupied Territories) are the offspring of same native people that were there before the European invasion. I haven't mentioned right of return. The non-Jews are the majority within the area of Jewish control anyway. All that is required is enfranchisement of all the people non-Jews as well as Jews. Right of return is a secondary issue.

 

[montelatici]

No people have the right to expel the native people from the land they inhabit to make room for people from another continent.

Not the subject of conversation. We are discussing the right of a people expelled as a result of conflict to return.

Right of return is not the subject of the thread. Please stay on track.

 

[P F Tinmore]

And illegal too. But that is what is happening to the Palestinians now.

The only remedy for that injustice is the right of return and a one state solution.

You are avoiding the issue. You posted a video, which you appear to support, which states that PEOPLE have an absolute, inalienable, universal, intergenerational right to return to their place of origin (their homeland) and have self-determination there.

Oh, except the JEWISH PEOPLE. They, of all the peoples of this world, are excluded from having that right.

Once again, I am supporting the rights of both people, which I consistently do, while you are actively denying the rights of one people, which you consistently do.

The RoR is an individual right. Each person of a place has the right to return to his home in that place.

That doesn't apply to people who have never been there.

 

[Shusha]

And illegal too. But that is what is happening to the Palestinians now.

The only remedy for that injustice is the right of return and a one state solution.

You are avoiding the issue. You posted a video, which you appear to support, which states that PEOPLE have an absolute, inalienable, universal, intergenerational right to return to their place of origin (their homeland) and have self-determination there.

Oh, except the JEWISH PEOPLE. They, of all the peoples of this world, are excluded from having that right.

Once again, I am supporting the rights of both people, which I consistently do, while you are actively denying the rights of one people, which you consistently do.

The RoR is an individual right. Each person of a place has the right to return to his home in that place.

That doesn't apply to people who have never been there.

So you disagree that it is an intergenerational right? You would argue that the descendants of those forced out by the conflicts in 1948 and 1967 have no RoR?

 

[P F Tinmore]

And illegal too. But that is what is happening to the Palestinians now.

The only remedy for that injustice is the right of return and a one state solution.

You are avoiding the issue. You posted a video, which you appear to support, which states that PEOPLE have an absolute, inalienable, universal, intergenerational right to return to their place of origin (their homeland) and have self-determination there.

Oh, except the JEWISH PEOPLE. They, of all the peoples of this world, are excluded from having that right.

Once again, I am supporting the rights of both people, which I consistently do, while you are actively denying the rights of one people, which you consistently do.

The RoR is an individual right. Each person of a place has the right to return to his home in that place.

That doesn't apply to people who have never been there.

So you disagree that it is an intergenerational right? You would argue that the descendants of those forced out by the conflicts in 1948 and 1967 have no RoR?

Where do you get that?

 

[Shusha]

Where do you get that?

You said the RoR doesn't apply to people who have never been there.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Where do you get that?

You said the RoR doesn't apply to people who have never been there.

Are you forgetting intergenerational?

 

[Shusha]

Where do you get that?

You said the RoR doesn't apply to people who have never been there.

Are you forgetting intergenerational?

I'M not forgetting intergenerational. It seems you are. But only when it comes to the Jewish people. You accept the intergenerational nature of the RoR, except for the Jewish people. You might want to pull your skirt down, your hypocrisy is showing.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

On May 15, 1947 the UN appointed a committee, the UNSCOP, composed of representatives from eleven states. To make the committee more neutral, none of the Great Powers were represented.

It seems you missed what it was that they wanted to partition.

(QUESTION)

What was it they wanted to partition???

Most Respectfully,
R

It was Palestine.

The Palestinians had the right to say no. They did and there was no more partition.

 

[P F Tinmore]

That leads us back to the '67 borders. They are the 1949 armistice lines that were specifically not the be political or territorial boundaries.

Since they were not really borders they did not change Palestine's existing international borders.

I'm not sure what you are arguing for here, then. That Palestine is one contiguous state from the border with Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon? And that this can not be changed? And that it should be under the sovereignty of Arab Muslims?

Here is a 1946 map of Palestine. Look in the legend for the border line then find that line on the map.

Where are those borders in 1949? Example:

Article V
1. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the international boundary between the Lebanon and Palestine.

The Avalon Project : Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement, March 23, 1949

Still there.

The arab muslims denied this plan so lost a lot of land they could have claimed in 1948. You ane them are crying over your ineptitude and arrogance in demanding all the land and getting nothing. The above map was a proposal and not set in stone borders. And the one you mention is the borders of the Mandate of Palestine with Lebanon as no state or nation of Palestine has ever existed.

Do you have links to all that?

 

[P F Tinmore]

First, be specific... What rights do you think the Arabs had? And out of those right, which do think the Palestinians did not get.

It seems apparent to me that Tinmore thinks the Arabs had rights to exclusive sovereignty.

Nobody has posted anything to the contrary.

Apart from all the treaties and Mandate of Palestine that says your claims are a crock of shit. From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners ) granted the Jews a portion of Ottoman land as their NATIONal home under extant international laws of the day.

Show where that is incorrect

The LoN never owned any land.

 

[P F Tinmore]

There was no Lebanon, Syria, or Jordan. Before 1900 they were all the same place.

Um. Yeah. Exactly. Bingo. They were the same place. There was no Lebanon. There was no Syria. There was no Jordan. There was no Palestine. There was no Israel.

So what, legally, gave Lebanon, and Syria, and Jordan the RIGHT to sovereignty over the territory they now hold? And in what way does that SAME right deny the rights to the Jewish people over sovereignty as well?

The people of the place, those who normally lived there, had sovereignty over their respective place.

Sovereignty did not apply to those who normally lived somewhere else.

Religion is not a factor.

But International treaties are, and they gave 22% of the sovereignty to the Jews. The same treaties expressly stated that the arab muslims wishing to remain as full citizens of the Jewish NATIONal home would do so as peaceful people. Any violent action would see them evicted from the state and the loss of their citizenship.

Links?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, Phoenall, Shusha, et al,

The scope, the nature and the meaning of the Covenant (especially Article 22), San Remo Agreement, the Order in Council and the Mandate, belongs to the interpretation of the Allied Power and the Council to the League of Nations.

First, be specific... What rights do you think the Arabs had? And out of those right, which do think the Palestinians did not get.

It seems apparent to me that Tinmore thinks the Arabs had rights to exclusive sovereignty.

Nobody has posted anything to the contrary.

Apart from all the treaties and Mandate of Palestine that says your claims are a crock of shit. From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners ) granted the Jews a portion of Ottoman land as their NATIONal home under extant international laws of the day.

Show where that is incorrect

From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners )​

That is where your theory goes south. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed sovereignty. They merely held the territories in trust on behalf of the inhabitants.

(COMMENT)

Your sentence is absolutely true. But I caution you not to make a leap of faith.

View attachment 57148​

The Mandatory (UK) and the Council to the League of Nations, DID NOT WANT sovereignty. They had absolute control of the territory and the future of the territory, as the title and rights was passed from the surrendering Sovereign (via Turkey in Article 16) to the successor government established by the Allied Powers.

The Mandate is actually a derivative authority passed down to the Mandatory by the Council of the League of Nations.

Most Respectfully,
R

They had absolute control of the territory and the future of the territory, as the title and rights was passed from the surrendering Sovereign (via Turkey in Article 16) to the successor government established by the Allied Powers.​

Britain failed to set up a successor government before they left. The right to set up their own government reverted to the citizens.

 

[P F Tinmore]

... those that go to another land on another continent to displace the natives that are the hostiles...

1. An argument that "hostiles" who have displaced natives have no valid rights to territory or sovereignty would make nearly every current nation on the planet illegitimate. Are you claiming that nations such as Canada, the US, Australia and others are illegitimate?

2. The Jewish people are returning to their homeland, a land where they have a 4000 year old history and from which they were forceably ethnically cleansed in belligerent warfare. Are you denying that people have a right to return to their homeland after being ethnically cleansed?

Perhaps you are not. But what then, is your purpose in these discussions of delegitimizing the one side by using arguments which you do not then apply to other national groups?

When the natives were run off their land in the above countries, military conquest was not illegal.

In 1948 it was. That leaves Israel in an uncomfortable position.

LINK showing that this was international law in 1948, as the first time it appeared as a recommendation was in 1967 in the UN res 242. Stop trying to make resolutions international laws and then using them retrospectively

It is in the UN Charter.