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

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again we're back to this.

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.

(OBSERVATION)

Point # 1: Any dispute relating to the application or the interpretation of this declaration shall be referred, at the request of either party, to the International Court of Justice, unless the parties agree to another mode of settlement.

• The Palestinians did not participate with the process; formally rejecting the process in January 1948. The Arab Palestinians never asked for dispute resolution at the ICJ. [SOURCE: Part C - General Provisions, Chapter 4, Resolution 181(II)]
​

Point #2: When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations. (SOURCE: Part I Section F)

Point #3: During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented." (SOURCE: UN Department of Public Information Press and Publications Bureau PAL/169 17 May 1948.)

Point #4: The Arab Palestinians used a very similar process.

• Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and
Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem. (SOURCE: Palestine Declaration of Independence A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)​

Point #5: For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.

Point #6: The PLO-Negotiation Affair, stated: Almost immediately after the Partition Plan vote, organized Jewish militias began military campaigns to seize control over even more of historic Palestine’s territory than the UN partition plan had proposed. On May 14, 1948, after months of military expansion, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel in reaction to the eruption . However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine.

(COMMENT)

YES. The Arab Palestinians had the Right to decline the offer. But their declination does not prohibit a Jewish acceptance.

The Arab Palestinians DO NOT have the right to decline the offer extended by the UN -- using that as an excuse to prevent the Jewish Representative from accepting.

You will note that "either" party could accept. Nowhere in the offer does the UN say that "both" must accept. This is again an argument which the Arab Palestinian attempts to use to discredit the the Israeli Declaration of Independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again we're back to this.

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.

(OBSERVATION)

Point # 1: Any dispute relating to the application or the interpretation of this declaration shall be referred, at the request of either party, to the International Court of Justice, unless the parties agree to another mode of settlement.

• The Palestinians did not participate with the process; formally rejecting the process in January 1948. The Arab Palestinians never asked for dispute resolution at the ICJ. [SOURCE: Part C - General Provisions, Chapter 4, Resolution 181(II)]
​

Point #2: When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations. (SOURCE: Part I Section F)

Point #3: During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented." (SOURCE: UN Department of Public Information Press and Publications Bureau PAL/169 17 May 1948.)

Point #4: The Arab Palestinians used a very similar process.

• Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and
Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem. (SOURCE: Palestine Declaration of Independence A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)​

Point #5: For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.

Point #6: The PLO-Negotiation Affair, stated: Almost immediately after the Partition Plan vote, organized Jewish militias began military campaigns to seize control over even more of historic Palestine’s territory than the UN partition plan had proposed. On May 14, 1948, after months of military expansion, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel in reaction to the eruption . However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine.

(COMMENT)

YES. The Arab Palestinians had the Right to decline the offer. But their declination does not prohibit a Jewish acceptance.

The Arab Palestinians DO NOT have the right to decline the offer extended by the UN -- using that as an excuse to prevent the Jewish Representative from accepting.

You will note that "either" party could accept. Nowhere in the offer does the UN say that "both" must accept. This is again an argument which the Arab Palestinian attempts to use to discredit the the Israeli Declaration of Independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

The fact is that once the Palestinians rejected the partition of Palestine, there was no more resolution 181. The Security Council would not impose it by force.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You can quite using this double talk.

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.

(COMMENT)

First, the term "ownership" has absolutely nothing to do with extending government control or territorial sovereignty (neither of which the Arab Palestinians had). In fact, none of the regional Arabs had exclusive control or sovereignty over any of the territories under Mandate.

In the case of Palestine,

Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne gives renders the exclusive control for the Ottoman Sovereign to the Allied Powers; giving the Allied Powers control of the future of the territories.

"Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."
​

The Arab Palestinians were not a party to the Treaty.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

That argument just doesn't hunt.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again we're back to this.

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.

(OBSERVATION)

Point # 1: Any dispute relating to the application or the interpretation of this declaration shall be referred, at the request of either party, to the International Court of Justice, unless the parties agree to another mode of settlement.

• The Palestinians did not participate with the process; formally rejecting the process in January 1948. The Arab Palestinians never asked for dispute resolution at the ICJ. [SOURCE: Part C - General Provisions, Chapter 4, Resolution 181(II)]
​

Point #2: When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations. (SOURCE: Part I Section F)

Point #3: During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented." (SOURCE: UN Department of Public Information Press and Publications Bureau PAL/169 17 May 1948.)

Point #4: The Arab Palestinians used a very similar process.

• Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and
Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem. (SOURCE: Palestine Declaration of Independence A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)​

Point #5: For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.

Point #6: The PLO-Negotiation Affair, stated: Almost immediately after the Partition Plan vote, organized Jewish militias began military campaigns to seize control over even more of historic Palestine’s territory than the UN partition plan had proposed. On May 14, 1948, after months of military expansion, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel in reaction to the eruption . However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine.

(COMMENT)

YES. The Arab Palestinians had the Right to decline the offer. But their declination does not prohibit a Jewish acceptance.

The Arab Palestinians DO NOT have the right to decline the offer extended by the UN -- using that as an excuse to prevent the Jewish Representative from accepting.

You will note that "either" party could accept. Nowhere in the offer does the UN say that "both" must accept. This is again an argument which the Arab Palestinian attempts to use to discredit the the Israeli Declaration of Independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

The fact is that once the Palestinians rejected the partition of Palestine, there was no more resolution 181. The Security Council would not impose it by force.

(COMMENT)

On more than one occasion, the Sole Representatives of the Palestinians recognized the international legitimacy of A/RES/181(II); once in 1988, once in 1999, and again when acknowledged by the PLO Negotiation Affairs Department made open to the public.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You can quite using this double talk.

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.

(COMMENT)

First, the term "ownership" has absolutely nothing to do with extending government control or territorial sovereignty (neither of which the Arab Palestinians had). In fact, none of the regional Arabs had exclusive control or sovereignty over any of the territories under Mandate.

In the case of Palestine,

Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne gives renders the exclusive control for the Ottoman Sovereign to the Allied Powers; giving the Allied Powers control of the future of the territories.

"Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."
​

The Arab Palestinians were not a party to the Treaty.

Most Respectfully,
R

None of the new states were party to the treaty.

What is your point?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

That argument just doesn't hunt.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again we're back to this.

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.

(OBSERVATION)

Point # 1: Any dispute relating to the application or the interpretation of this declaration shall be referred, at the request of either party, to the International Court of Justice, unless the parties agree to another mode of settlement.

• The Palestinians did not participate with the process; formally rejecting the process in January 1948. The Arab Palestinians never asked for dispute resolution at the ICJ. [SOURCE: Part C - General Provisions, Chapter 4, Resolution 181(II)]
​

Point #2: When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations. (SOURCE: Part I Section F)

Point #3: During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented." (SOURCE: UN Department of Public Information Press and Publications Bureau PAL/169 17 May 1948.)

Point #4: The Arab Palestinians used a very similar process.

• Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and
Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem. (SOURCE: Palestine Declaration of Independence A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)​

Point #5: For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.

Point #6: The PLO-Negotiation Affair, stated: Almost immediately after the Partition Plan vote, organized Jewish militias began military campaigns to seize control over even more of historic Palestine’s territory than the UN partition plan had proposed. On May 14, 1948, after months of military expansion, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel in reaction to the eruption . However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine.

(COMMENT)

YES. The Arab Palestinians had the Right to decline the offer. But their declination does not prohibit a Jewish acceptance.

The Arab Palestinians DO NOT have the right to decline the offer extended by the UN -- using that as an excuse to prevent the Jewish Representative from accepting.

You will note that "either" party could accept. Nowhere in the offer does the UN say that "both" must accept. This is again an argument which the Arab Palestinian attempts to use to discredit the the Israeli Declaration of Independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

The fact is that once the Palestinians rejected the partition of Palestine, there was no more resolution 181. The Security Council would not impose it by force.

(COMMENT)

On more than one occasion, the Sole Representatives of the Palestinians recognized the international legitimacy of A/RES/181(II); once in 1988, once in 1999, and again when acknowledged by the PLO Negotiation Affairs Department made open to the public.

Most Respectfully,
R

Does that mean that there are now two states on the proposed 181 borders?

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You can quite using this double talk.

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.

(COMMENT)

First, the term "ownership" has absolutely nothing to do with extending government control or territorial sovereignty (neither of which the Arab Palestinians had). In fact, none of the regional Arabs had exclusive control or sovereignty over any of the territories under Mandate.

In the case of Palestine,

Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne gives renders the exclusive control for the Ottoman Sovereign to the Allied Powers; giving the Allied Powers control of the future of the territories.

"Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."
​

The Arab Palestinians were not a party to the Treaty.

Most Respectfully,
R

Pursuant to Article 22 of the League of Nations the Mandatory was required to bring the "INHABITANTS" of the said territories (not the inhabitants of Europe that practiced Judaism) in a condition to assume self rule.

"ARTICLE 22.
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 best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.

Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.

There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population."

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You can quite using this double talk.

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.

(COMMENT)

First, the term "ownership" has absolutely nothing to do with extending government control or territorial sovereignty (neither of which the Arab Palestinians had). In fact, none of the regional Arabs had exclusive control or sovereignty over any of the territories under Mandate.

In the case of Palestine,

Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne gives renders the exclusive control for the Ottoman Sovereign to the Allied Powers; giving the Allied Powers control of the future of the territories.

"Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."
​

The Arab Palestinians were not a party to the Treaty.

Most Respectfully,
R

Pursuant to Article 22 of the League of Nations the Mandatory was required to bring the "INHABITANTS" of the said territories (not the inhabitants of Europe that practiced Judaism) in a condition to assume self rule.

"ARTICLE 22.
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 best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.

Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.

There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population."

Don't confuse Rocco with the facts.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You can quite using this double talk.

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.

(COMMENT)

First, the term "ownership" has absolutely nothing to do with extending government control or territorial sovereignty (neither of which the Arab Palestinians had). In fact, none of the regional Arabs had exclusive control or sovereignty over any of the territories under Mandate.

In the case of Palestine,

Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne gives renders the exclusive control for the Ottoman Sovereign to the Allied Powers; giving the Allied Powers control of the future of the territories.

"Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."
​

The Arab Palestinians were not a party to the Treaty.

Most Respectfully,
R

Pursuant to Article 22 of the League of Nations the Mandatory was required to bring the "INHABITANTS" of the said territories (not the inhabitants of Europe that practiced Judaism) in a condition to assume self rule.

"ARTICLE 22.
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 best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.

Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.

There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population."

I don't see foreigners mentioned.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Your previous argument tried to give the impression that "Arab Palestinian" property ownership somehow had an impact on the exclusive control or sovereignty over the territories. IT DOES NOT.

None of the new states were party to the treaty.

What is your point?

(COMMENT)

You argument tried to suggest that UN lack of Ownership somehow impacted in the exclusive control and sovereignty. It does not.

The territories and the future of those territories passed from the previous sovereign to the Allied Powers. The Arab Palestinians (nor any of the other Arab of the former enemy held territory) received any authority, control, independence of sovereignty. That was exclusive to the Allied Powers, for which the Arab Palestinians were not members.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Your previous argument tried to give the impression that "Arab Palestinian" property ownership somehow had an impact on the exclusive control or sovereignty over the territories. IT DOES NOT.

None of the new states were party to the treaty.

What is your point?

(COMMENT)

You argument tried to suggest that UN lack of Ownership somehow impacted in the exclusive control and sovereignty. It does not.

The territories and the future of those territories passed from the previous sovereign to the Allied Powers. The Arab Palestinians (nor any of the other Arab of the former enemy held territory) received any authority, control, independence of sovereignty. That was exclusive to the Allied Powers, for which the Arab Palestinians were not members.

Most Respectfully,
R

Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, signed by all the Mandatories, including Britain, required that the Mandatory assist the "INHABITANTS", who in the case of Palestine were the Muslim and Christians in achieving statehood. It said nothing of any right of the inhabitants of Europe.

"ARTICLE 22.
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 best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.

Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.

There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population."

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are trying to pass-on some right or authority for which the members of the League of Nations had a say; and for which the League of Nations could interpret. The Arab inhabitance had no impact.

I don't see foreigners mentioned.

(COMMENT)

Everyone member and the Allied Powers understood what the intent was. And to that end, that intent was carried out without the cooperation of the inhalants that elected not to participate in self-government programs.

Article 22 interpretation was in the hands of the League Mandate Commission, which oversaw the Mandates over the territories; and later the UN Trustee Program. It is their interpretation that takes the day.

The Arab Palestinians always thought, like most parasitic constituents, they were entitled to more than what they received. It is what it is. That is what the war of independence was about and that was the outcome.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are trying to pass-on some right or authority for which the members of the League of Nations had a say; and for which the League of Nations could interpret. The Arab inhabitance had no impact.

I don't see foreigners mentioned.

(COMMENT)

Everyone member and the Allied Powers understood what the intent was. And to that end, that intent was carried out without the cooperation of the inhalants that elected not to participate in self-government programs.

Article 22 interpretation was in the hands of the League Mandate Commission, which oversaw the Mandates over the territories; and later the UN Trustee Program. It is their interpretation that takes the day.

The Arab Palestinians always thought, like most parasitic constituents, they were entitled to more than what they received. It is what it is. That is what the war of independence was about and that was the outcome.

Most Respectfully,
R

How can you interpret "inhabitant" as not being an "inhabitant"? You go looney when you lose. Your racist hate of Arabs is disgusting by the way. "parasitic constituents" my ass. They read the Covenant as anyone with a minimal grasp of the language read it, the "inhabitants", and the Muslims and Christians were the inhabitants were to be brought, through the tutelage of the Mandatory, to statehood.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Your previous argument tried to give the impression that "Arab Palestinian" property ownership somehow had an impact on the exclusive control or sovereignty over the territories. IT DOES NOT.

None of the new states were party to the treaty.

What is your point?

(COMMENT)

You argument tried to suggest that UN lack of Ownership somehow impacted in the exclusive control and sovereignty. It does not.

The territories and the future of those territories passed from the previous sovereign to the Allied Powers. The Arab Palestinians (nor any of the other Arab of the former enemy held territory) received any authority, control, independence of sovereignty. That was exclusive to the Allied Powers, for which the Arab Palestinians were not members.

Most Respectfully,
R

There is private property and all other property is collectively owned by the citizens.
The LoN, the Mandate, and the UN were not in either of these categories.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are trying to pass-on some right or authority for which the members of the League of Nations had a say; and for which the League of Nations could interpret. The Arab inhabitance had no impact.

I don't see foreigners mentioned.

(COMMENT)

Everyone member and the Allied Powers understood what the intent was. And to that end, that intent was carried out without the cooperation of the inhalants that elected not to participate in self-government programs.

Article 22 interpretation was in the hands of the League Mandate Commission, which oversaw the Mandates over the territories; and later the UN Trustee Program. It is their interpretation that takes the day.

The Arab Palestinians always thought, like most parasitic constituents, they were entitled to more than what they received. It is what it is. That is what the war of independence was about and that was the outcome.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again we're back to this.

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.

(OBSERVATION)

Point # 1: Any dispute relating to the application or the interpretation of this declaration shall be referred, at the request of either party, to the International Court of Justice, unless the parties agree to another mode of settlement.

• The Palestinians did not participate with the process; formally rejecting the process in January 1948. The Arab Palestinians never asked for dispute resolution at the ICJ. [SOURCE: Part C - General Provisions, Chapter 4, Resolution 181(II)]
​

Point #2: When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations. (SOURCE: Part I Section F)

Point #3: During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented." (SOURCE: UN Department of Public Information Press and Publications Bureau PAL/169 17 May 1948.)

Point #4: The Arab Palestinians used a very similar process.

• Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and
Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem. (SOURCE: Palestine Declaration of Independence A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)​

Point #5: For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.

Point #6: The PLO-Negotiation Affair, stated: Almost immediately after the Partition Plan vote, organized Jewish militias began military campaigns to seize control over even more of historic Palestine’s territory than the UN partition plan had proposed. On May 14, 1948, after months of military expansion, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel in reaction to the eruption . However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine.

(COMMENT)

YES. The Arab Palestinians had the Right to decline the offer. But their declination does not prohibit a Jewish acceptance.

The Arab Palestinians DO NOT have the right to decline the offer extended by the UN -- using that as an excuse to prevent the Jewish Representative from accepting.

You will note that "either" party could accept. Nowhere in the offer does the UN say that "both" must accept. This is again an argument which the Arab Palestinian attempts to use to discredit the the Israeli Declaration of Independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine.​

Common misperception. Those five Arab armies did not lose the 1948 war.

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again we're back to this.

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.

(OBSERVATION)

Point # 1: Any dispute relating to the application or the interpretation of this declaration shall be referred, at the request of either party, to the International Court of Justice, unless the parties agree to another mode of settlement.

• The Palestinians did not participate with the process; formally rejecting the process in January 1948. The Arab Palestinians never asked for dispute resolution at the ICJ. [SOURCE: Part C - General Provisions, Chapter 4, Resolution 181(II)]
​

Point #2: When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations. (SOURCE: Part I Section F)

Point #3: During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented." (SOURCE: UN Department of Public Information Press and Publications Bureau PAL/169 17 May 1948.)

Point #4: The Arab Palestinians used a very similar process.

• Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and
Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem. (SOURCE: Palestine Declaration of Independence A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)​

Point #5: For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.

Point #6: The PLO-Negotiation Affair, stated: Almost immediately after the Partition Plan vote, organized Jewish militias began military campaigns to seize control over even more of historic Palestine’s territory than the UN partition plan had proposed. On May 14, 1948, after months of military expansion, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel in reaction to the eruption . However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine.

(COMMENT)

YES. The Arab Palestinians had the Right to decline the offer. But their declination does not prohibit a Jewish acceptance.

The Arab Palestinians DO NOT have the right to decline the offer extended by the UN -- using that as an excuse to prevent the Jewish Representative from accepting.

You will note that "either" party could accept. Nowhere in the offer does the UN say that "both" must accept. This is again an argument which the Arab Palestinian attempts to use to discredit the the Israeli Declaration of Independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine.​

Common misperception. Those five Arab armies did not lose the 1948 war.

You're right, Tinmore! It was the World Series they lost.

 

[theliq]

Challenger, et al,

Two points I would like to make.

I supplied the link to the document Communique twice, so that it was easily referenced. And the quote was exact. In every Special Theater operations, especially in the Middle East, there is a bit of truth.

I did not misrepresent anything. HM made a very good plan and craftily wired cable. I take great exception, given that I gave all references and explained the plan in detail.

I'm surprised that you would make such an accusation. Is that all you can do.

Preparatory Steps to Independence,

What exactly are these specifically and where can I find them within U.N. documents?

(ANSWER)

The "Steps Preparatory to Independence" are to be found in easily Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine, Part I - Section B; 29 November 1948.

In the official media release by the UN and UNPC, Press Release PAL/169 17 May 1948, said in part:

During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, neither of your links mention Israel.

Recommends
to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;

Requests that

(a) The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;

A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947​

Where did the UN get the authority to divide a country and set up governments against the wishes of the people?

Link?

What measures did the Security Council take to implement the plan?

Link?

When was Palestine ever a country?

Link?

When was it ever an independent Muslim state?

It was previously part of the British Empire, and then part of the Ottoman Empire, then part of the Babylonian Empire, then an independent Jewish state, then part of the Roman Empire, and then an independent Jewish State. The romans called it Palestine which actually refers to the Phillistines.

Another Idiotic comment,the Romans were far more educated than the above poster,the Romans knew the difference between the Philistines(who the Jews EXTERMINATED under King David) and the Palestinians the real Semitic people of the area.

CMike...off to the naughty corner with you and on the way collect the Conical Yellow Hat marked with a "D" (for DUNCE) put it on and face the apex of the wall.

 

[theliq]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again we're back to this.

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.

(OBSERVATION)

Point # 1: Any dispute relating to the application or the interpretation of this declaration shall be referred, at the request of either party, to the International Court of Justice, unless the parties agree to another mode of settlement.

• The Palestinians did not participate with the process; formally rejecting the process in January 1948. The Arab Palestinians never asked for dispute resolution at the ICJ. [SOURCE: Part C - General Provisions, Chapter 4, Resolution 181(II)]
​

Point #2: When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations. (SOURCE: Part I Section F)

Point #3: During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented." (SOURCE: UN Department of Public Information Press and Publications Bureau PAL/169 17 May 1948.)

Point #4: The Arab Palestinians used a very similar process.

• Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and
Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem. (SOURCE: Palestine Declaration of Independence A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)​

Point #5: For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.

Point #6: The PLO-Negotiation Affair, stated: Almost immediately after the Partition Plan vote, organized Jewish militias began military campaigns to seize control over even more of historic Palestine’s territory than the UN partition plan had proposed. On May 14, 1948, after months of military expansion, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel in reaction to the eruption . However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine.

(COMMENT)

YES. The Arab Palestinians had the Right to decline the offer. But their declination does not prohibit a Jewish acceptance.

The Arab Palestinians DO NOT have the right to decline the offer extended by the UN -- using that as an excuse to prevent the Jewish Representative from accepting.

You will note that "either" party could accept. Nowhere in the offer does the UN say that "both" must accept. This is again an argument which the Arab Palestinian attempts to use to discredit the the Israeli Declaration of Independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine.​

Common misperception. Those five Arab armies did not lose the 1948 war.

You're right, Tinmore! It was the World Series they lost.

I missed the connection on that comment Hoss......WTFAYTA...steve

 

[Hossfly]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Again we're back to this.

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.

(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.

(OBSERVATION)

Point # 1: Any dispute relating to the application or the interpretation of this declaration shall be referred, at the request of either party, to the International Court of Justice, unless the parties agree to another mode of settlement.

• The Palestinians did not participate with the process; formally rejecting the process in January 1948. The Arab Palestinians never asked for dispute resolution at the ICJ. [SOURCE: Part C - General Provisions, Chapter 4, Resolution 181(II)]
​

Point #2: When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective and the declaration and undertaking, as envisaged in this plan, have been signed by either of them, sympathetic consideration should be given to its application for admission to membership in the United Nations in accordance with Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations. (SOURCE: Part I Section F)

Point #3: During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented." (SOURCE: UN Department of Public Information Press and Publications Bureau PAL/169 17 May 1948.)

Point #4: The Arab Palestinians used a very similar process.

• Pursuant to the resolutions of the Arab Summit Conferences and on the basis of the international legitimacy embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations since 1947, and
Through the exercise by the Palestinian Arab people of its right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty over its territory:
The Palestine National Council hereby declares, in the Name of God and on behalf of the Palestinian Arab people, the establishment of the State of Palestine in the land of Palestine with its capital at Jerusalem. (SOURCE: Palestine Declaration of Independence A/43/827 S/20278 18 November 1988)​

Point #5: For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the Arab States in Mandated Palestine. According to the resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and to reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State. The Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly resolution 181 (II), as well as Security Council resolution 242 (1967), the implementation of which is the aim of the current Middle East peace process.

Point #6: The PLO-Negotiation Affair, stated: Almost immediately after the Partition Plan vote, organized Jewish militias began military campaigns to seize control over even more of historic Palestine’s territory than the UN partition plan had proposed. On May 14, 1948, after months of military expansion, Zionist forces declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The next day, neighboring Arab armies attacked Israel in reaction to the eruption . However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine.

(COMMENT)

YES. The Arab Palestinians had the Right to decline the offer. But their declination does not prohibit a Jewish acceptance.

The Arab Palestinians DO NOT have the right to decline the offer extended by the UN -- using that as an excuse to prevent the Jewish Representative from accepting.

You will note that "either" party could accept. Nowhere in the offer does the UN say that "both" must accept. This is again an argument which the Arab Palestinian attempts to use to discredit the the Israeli Declaration of Independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

However, Israeli forces defeated Arab forces and by the end of the war in 1949, Israel controlled 78 percent of historic Palestine.​

Common misperception. Those five Arab armies did not lose the 1948 war.

You're right, Tinmore! It was the World Series they lost.

I missed the connection on that comment Hoss......WTFAYTA...steve

Code, Steve.