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

[Boston1]

Not all of the mandated area was intended for the creation of an Israeli state. Only that west of the Jordan, east of the Jordan was intended for the Arab Muslim majority. Which is why no one really complained about it when it was set aside. The Zionists believed they'd be allowed the west bank area.

From there the Arab Muslims west of the Jordan pitched a fit and insisted they be given more land. So the league of nations caved in and thus began this whole show about land "intended" for a palestinian state. It would be fare more historically accurate to say it was intended for the creation of a national Jewish homeland.

Which brings us to its occupation by hostile Arab forces.

I have the mandate around here somewhere, I'll try and look up the relevant articles

Wait a minute, its in the Jordan Memorandum, which I think I also have around here somewhere hang on a minute

Quote

Geneva,
September 23rd, 1922.
ARTICLE 25 OF THE PALESTINE MANDATE. Territory known as Trans-Jordan.
Note by the Secretary-General.
The Secretary-General has the honour to communicate for the information of the Members of the League, a memorandum relating to Article 25 of the Palestine Mandate presented by the British Government to the Council of the League on September 16th, 1922.
The memorandum was approved by the Council subject to the decision taken at its meeting in London on July 24th, 1922, with regard to the coming into force of the Palestine and Syrian mandates.
Memorandum by the British Representative.
1. Article 25 of the Mandate for Palestine provides as follows :— " In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this Mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18."
2. In pursuance of the provisions of this Article, His Majesty's Government invite the Council to pass the following resolution : — "The following provisions of the Mandate for Palestine are not applicable to the territory known as Trans-Jordan, which comprises all territory lying to the east of a line drawn from a point two miles west of the town of Akaba on the Gulf of that name up the centre of the Wady Araba, Dead Sea and River Jordan to its junction with the River Yarmuk; thence up the centre of that river to the Syrian Frontier."
Preamble. — Recitals 2 and 3.
Article 2. — The words "placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and".
Article 4.
Article 6.
Article 7. — The sentence " There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine."
Article 11. — The second sentence of the first paragraph and the second paragraph.
Article 13.
Article 14.
Article 22.
Article 23.
In the application of the Mandate to Trans-Jordan, the action which, in Palestine, is taken by the Administration of the latter country, will be taken by the Administration of Trans-Jordan under the general supervision of the Mandatory.
3. His Majesty's Government accept full responsibility as Mandatory for Trans-Jordan, and undertake that such provision as may be made for the administration of that territory in accordance with Article 25 of the Mandate shall be in no way inconsistent with those provisions of the Mandate which are not by this resolution declared inapplicable.

End Quote

 

[montelatici]

Posting text that confirms that Trans-Jordania was legally a separate territory and country, eventually becoming a Hashemite Kingdom and not Palestinian makes game, set and match.

"ARTICLE 25 OF THE PALESTINE MANDATE. Territory known as Trans-Jordan."

" In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine"

"In the application of the Mandate to Trans-Jordan, the action which, in Palestine, is taken by the Administration of the latter country, "

 

[Boston1]

LOL no. What it proves is that the area known as Trans Jordan was within the mandate for palestine.

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, et al,

Well a lot of people have muddled the waters on this. This is the short answer. You can skip the background "COMMENT", as it evolved,

The Mandate did not promise anything to either the Arabs or Jewish. The Mandate was technically a record of the Agreement between the various Allied Powers AND a directive issued by the Allied Powers to the British, as the Mandatory, as to the fundamentals of what in the broad sense needed to be done. It was not written or use as an authority for either the Arab or the Jews. The Mandate did not, even once, speak directly to either the Arabs or the Jews. It was mandate (an official record of direction and guidance) speaking from the Allied Powers to the British. Neither the Arabs or the Jewish were parties to the Mandate, and nor did the Mandate actually direct, command, promise, or impose guidance upon either the Arabs or the Jewish.

I have a Mandate question and this would be the thread to ask it. The history seems so convoluted I can't find a straight answer from unbiased sources.

In various debates I've heard claimed that ALL of "Palestine" was given to the Jews by the Mandate, therefore the Palestinians can or should be sent to Jordan. Yet, when Israel declared independence - it did so with specific borders that are not the Mandate's. It then took more territory when it won a war waged against it. That territory is what is called "Occupied Territories" or, more recently by historical revisionists "disputed territories". What I'm wondering is, in terms of international law - what really belongs to Israel, and how much legal force does the mandate wield? Was the mandate later over-ruled by other agreements? RoccoR

(COMMENT)

The Balfour Declaration was a quasi-Diplomatic Note written by Lord Balfour (as the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary) to Lord Rothschild, a prominent citizen in the British business community and well known leader in the British Jewish community. Lord Rothschild, son of Baron Ferdinand von Rothschild, Austrian Noble, was being asked to relay information to the Zionist Federation; on a decision approved by the British Cabinet. It too was not a promise. It was really a diplomatic notice of a Cabinet Level decision; in a very broad brush stroke. But this broad language would be used over again in the San Remo Covenant (an agreement between Allied Powers), and the Mandate (a directive from the Allied Powers).

If there were implied promises (mind you --- these implied promise were not made to either the Arab or Jewish People) that would be that:

• The establishment of a Jewish National Home (JNH) in Palestine.
• And the intention the the JNH would not adversely impact the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish People.​

It should be remembered that the that the framework language of the Mandate was crafted in 1920, and by by the Allied Powers at San Remo. They already knew what was going to happen before the Paulet-Newcombe Agreement ( British and French governments regarding the position and nature of the boundary between the Mandates of Palestine and Mesopotamia, attributed to Great Britain, and the Mandate of Syria and the Lebanon, attributed to France ) had been finalized. It should also be remembered that the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration had already passed their authority to the Civil Administration for the territory on 1 July 1920 (See Interim Report); less than three months after the San Remo Convention, but a couple years before the Mandate was finalized.

All the various "White Papers" and "Commission Reports" are just that. They are take as observation and interpretations at the time they were written and under the political pressures of the day. They are not authoritative or directive in nature. They do not have the force of law or establish an obligation. And you would be hard pressed to find one that was written for either the Arabs or Jewish People.

In April 1946, the League of Nations had its last meeting; with all assets having been transferred to the United Nations as the successor organization. Under Chapter XII, Article 77(1a) of the UN Charter (1945), all active Mandates were transferred to the UN Trusteeship System.

There were many events that happened during the War in which resulted in "impressions" and "consequences" but none the less had no obligations attached to it. One of the coincidence of the time (1946 to 1948), was the realization that the British Government, in an attempt to placate the Arab Palestinians and slow immigration down, Rammed the Ship and and tactically boarded the vessel. In the end, the ship with nearly 4000 Jewish men, women and children were forced way and eventually to the Port of Hamburg. The Jews were forced off the ship by British armed forces and transported to a couple Displaced Persons Camp Camps near Lubek. The coincidence was that on the day the UN Special Commission for Palestine (UNSCOP) arrived in Palestine, so did the Exodus.; and the stories told did not go unheard. Having said that, the actual policies of the US and Britain did not just apply to the Jews, but also to the Russians and the Polish --- and went something like this:

By late June the British Foreign Office decided to repatriate all Russian POWs, callously disregarding the consequences of such a policy (early in the war Stalin had made it clear that any Soviet citizens who were even temporarily out of Communist control would be regarded as traitors. Official Orders threatened “deserters” and POWs with draconian measures). On June 24, 1944, Patrick Dean, the Assistant Legal Adviser of the Foreign Office, declared: “In due course all those with whom the Soviet authorities desire to deal must … be handed over to them, and we are not concerned with the fact that they may be shot or otherwise more harshly dealt with than they might be under English law.”
From The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1980 (Vol. 1, No. 4), pages 371-376.​

The Jews, coming from Poland, Russia and Britain all passed on the stories. It was not a shining moment in Western Ethics. Certainly, all the way forward to the British withdraw, while many people may have had the impression that promises were made; nothing was promised at all until General Assembly Resolution 181(II).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

I'm thinking that you are making a very broad statement here for something that is not that simple. And certainly you misinterpreted Article 25 here.

Posting text that confirms that Trans-Jordania was legally a separate territory and country, eventually becoming a Hashemite Kingdom and not Palestinian makes game, set and match.

"ARTICLE 25 OF THE PALESTINE MANDATE. Territory known as Trans-Jordan."

" In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine"

"In the application of the Mandate to Trans-Jordan, the action which, in Palestine, is taken by the Administration of the latter country, "

(COMMENT)

If the Trans - Jordan area was not part of the mandate, it would not be mention in a Palestine Mandate. They would have made a separate Mandate.

I recommend you read this closely.

M. ORTS quoted the end of the declaration of Lord Cushendun:

• 
  "There should be no doubt at all in the minds of the members of the Council that my Government regards itself as responsible to the Council for the proper application in Trans-Jordan of all the provisions of the Palestine mandate, except those which have been excluded under Article 25."

SOURCE: TENTH MEETING. Held on Friday, July 5th, 1929, at 4 p.m.

[TBODY][TR][TD="align: center"]

07/19/1929​

[/TD][TD]C.305.M.105[/TD][TD]Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 15th session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission
[/TD][/TR][/TBODY]

This should be very clear to you:

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Coyote]

Coyote, et al,

Well a lot of people have muddled the waters on this. This is the short answer. You can skip the background "COMMENT", as it evolved,

The Mandate did not promise anything to either the Arabs or Jewish. The Mandate was technically a record of the Agreement between the various Allied Powers AND a directive issued by the Allied Powers to the British, as the Mandatory, as to the fundamentals of what in the broad sense needed to be done. It was not written or use as an authority for either the Arab or the Jews. The Mandate did not, even once, speak directly to either the Arabs or the Jews. It was mandate (an official record of direction and guidance) speaking from the Allied Powers to the British. Neither the Arabs or the Jewish were parties to the Mandate, and nor did the Mandate actually direct, command, promise, or impose guidance upon either the Arabs or the Jewish.

I have a Mandate question and this would be the thread to ask it. The history seems so convoluted I can't find a straight answer from unbiased sources.

In various debates I've heard claimed that ALL of "Palestine" was given to the Jews by the Mandate, therefore the Palestinians can or should be sent to Jordan. Yet, when Israel declared independence - it did so with specific borders that are not the Mandate's. It then took more territory when it won a war waged against it. That territory is what is called "Occupied Territories" or, more recently by historical revisionists "disputed territories". What I'm wondering is, in terms of international law - what really belongs to Israel, and how much legal force does the mandate wield? Was the mandate later over-ruled by other agreements? RoccoR

(COMMENT)

The Balfour Declaration was a quasi-Diplomatic Note written by Lord Balfour (as the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary) to Lord Rothschild, a prominent citizen in the British business community and well known leader in the British Jewish community. Lord Rothschild, son of Baron Ferdinand von Rothschild, Austrian Noble, was being asked to relay information to the Zionist Federation; on a decision approved by the British Cabinet. It too was not a promise. It was really a diplomatic notice of a Cabinet Level decision; in a very broad brush stroke. But this broad language would be used over again in the San Remo Covenant (an agreement between Allied Powers), and the Mandate (a directive from the Allied Powers).

If there were implied promises (mind you --- these implied promise were not made to either the Arab or Jewish People) that would be that:

• The establishment of a Jewish National Home (JNH) in Palestine.
• And the intention the the JNH would not adversely impact the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish People.​

It should be remembered that the that the framework language of the Mandate was crafted in 1920, and by by the Allied Powers at San Remo. They already knew what was going to happen before the Paulet-Newcombe Agreement ( British and French governments regarding the position and nature of the boundary between the Mandates of Palestine and Mesopotamia, attributed to Great Britain, and the Mandate of Syria and the Lebanon, attributed to France ) had been finalized. It should also be remembered that the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration had already passed their authority to the Civil Administration for the territory on 1 July 1920 (See Interim Report); less than three months after the San Remo Convention, but a couple years before the Mandate was finalized.

All the various "White Papers" and "Commission Reports" are just that. They are take as observation and interpretations at the time they were written and under the political pressures of the day. They are not authoritative or directive in nature. They do not have the force of law or establish an obligation. And you would be hard pressed to find one that was written for either the Arabs or Jewish People.

In April 1946, the League of Nations had its last meeting; with all assets having been transferred to the United Nations as the successor organization. Under Chapter XII, Article 77(1a) of the UN Charter (1945), all active Mandates were transferred to the UN Trusteeship System.

There were many events that happened during the War in which resulted in "impressions" and "consequences" but none the less had no obligations attached to it. One of the coincidence of the time (1946 to 1948), was the realization that the British Government, in an attempt to placate the Arab Palestinians and slow immigration down, Rammed the Ship and and tactically boarded the vessel. In the end, the ship with nearly 4000 Jewish men, women and children were forced way and eventually to the Port of Hamburg. The Jews were forced off the ship by British armed forces and transported to a couple Displaced Persons Camp Camps near Lubek. The coincidence was that on the day the UN Special Commission for Palestine (UNSCOP) arrived in Palestine, so did the Exodus.; and the stories told did not go unheard. Having said that, the actual policies of the US and Britain did not just apply to the Jews, but also to the Russians and the Polish --- and went something like this:

By late June the British Foreign Office decided to repatriate all Russian POWs, callously disregarding the consequences of such a policy (early in the war Stalin had made it clear that any Soviet citizens who were even temporarily out of Communist control would be regarded as traitors. Official Orders threatened “deserters” and POWs with draconian measures). On June 24, 1944, Patrick Dean, the Assistant Legal Adviser of the Foreign Office, declared: “In due course all those with whom the Soviet authorities desire to deal must … be handed over to them, and we are not concerned with the fact that they may be shot or otherwise more harshly dealt with than they might be under English law.”
From The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1980 (Vol. 1, No. 4), pages 371-376.​

The Jews, coming from Poland, Russia and Britain all passed on the stories. It was not a shining moment in Western Ethics. Certainly, all the way forward to the British withdraw, while may people may my have had the impression that promises were made; nothing was promised at all until General Assembly Resolution 181(II).

Most Respectfully,
R

Thank you, and - wow. I had no idea about the Russians and the Poles. That's as shameful as turning away the St. Louis

I appreciate this - I had a lot of erroneous ideas about what the "Mandate" was and thought it was legally binding rather than suggestive and I can see how both factions take implied promises as having the force of law. And no wonder the region is in such a mess.

 

[Boston1]

Um, I think there is a slight error going on here. The British mandate for palestine was a legal instrument legitimizing British administration of the area with a directive for how it was to proceed with the intention of a national Jewish homeland.

It failed and all it really did was carve Jordan from the mandated area but still.

It is a legal instrument and as such was considered legally binding to its signatories.

see
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiNp7bezL7KAhUok4MKHWggBvsQFggfMAA&url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leagcov.asp&usg=AFQjCNGSfXVXxWpR5xBk3NpmMlzoCrBXAg&sig2=p84k52q3SzQK3045y7wLWg&bvm=bv.112454388,d.amc

Quote
ARTICLE 14.
The Council shall formulate and submit to the Members of the League for adoption plans for the establishment of a Permanent Court of International Justice. The Court shall be competent to hear and determine any dispute of an international character which the parties thereto submit to it. The Court may also give an advisory opinion upon any dispute or question referred to it by the Council or by the Assembly.
End Quote

See also article 22

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

I'm thinking that you are making a very broad statement here for something that is not that simple. And certainly you misinterpreted Article 25 here.

Posting text that confirms that Trans-Jordania was legally a separate territory and country, eventually becoming a Hashemite Kingdom and not Palestinian makes game, set and match.

"ARTICLE 25 OF THE PALESTINE MANDATE. Territory known as Trans-Jordan."

" In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine"

"In the application of the Mandate to Trans-Jordan, the action which, in Palestine, is taken by the Administration of the latter country, "

(COMMENT)

If the Trans - Jordan area was not part of the mandate, it would not be mention in a Palestine Mandate. They would have made a separate Mandate.

I recommend you read this closely.

M. ORTS quoted the end of the declaration of Lord Cushendun:

• 
  "There should be no doubt at all in the minds of the members of the Council that my Government regards itself as responsible to the Council for the proper application in Trans-Jordan of all the provisions of the Palestine mandate, except those which have been excluded under Article 25."

SOURCE: TENTH MEETING. Held on Friday, July 5th, 1929, at 4 p.m.​

This should be very clear to you:

Most Respectfully,
R

I have misinterpreted nothing, you have misinterpreted the text. No one is saying that it was not part of the Mandate, the legal instrument. It was, however, a separate territory and, as the text further states, a separate "country", not subject to hosting the Jewish National Home. Which was to be hosted within the territory called Palestine, not Trans-Jordania in the manner stated below which refers exclusively to the territory of Palestine:


"Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English. His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded in Palestine.

In other words the claim that Trans-Jordania was somehow intended as the state for the Palestinians is a ridiculous claim, when in fact it was a territory intended for the Hashemites to rule over the native Bedouin Arabians in the territory of Trans-Jordania, who were not the Christians and Muslims of Palestine

 

[Boston1]

You are the king of misinterpretation

Could you please point to this mythical land of Trans Jordan ;--)

1759 map of Judaic tribes in the Canaan valley area

1851 map of Southern Syria

Or this one from 1921 showing the suggested mandated areas.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

You said "application to" and nothing about "statehood."

Nothing in the Mandate defined the meaning of the phrase Jewish National Home. That could be accomplished in any number of ways.

ARTICLE 25 OF THE PALESTINE MANDATE. Territory known as Trans-Jordan."

" In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine"

"In the application of the Mandate to Trans-Jordan, the action which, in Palestine, is taken by the Administration of the latter country, "

(COMMENT)

Trans-Jordan was included in the Mandate. That is not the same as saying it is to be considered in the JNH requirements.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Here's a thought, why don't you give all of Palestine to the Palestinian's and all the Israeli's can move to the US. We'll give you Wisconsin. The Mormons already got dibs on Utah.

Really? And you don't think the Wisconsiners are going to have a problem with that? You think yet another expulsion in the Jewish people's history is going to be the solution to the problem? Its been done time and time again and yet the "Jewish problem" remains. No matter where in the world the Jewish people are everyone is still looking for some kind of solution to the Jewish problem.

Well, we are finished with other people looking for a "solution" to our existence. We went home. We returned to our homeland. And whatever "Palestine" is to the "Palestinians", it is ALSO the homeland of the Jewish people. It always has been.

And when we say "never again" we mean that never again will we be treated like a problem to be solved or shipped away and made to go elsewhere. We are exercising our rights to our homeland. And if we have to fight for it, then so be it.

Really? And you don't think the Wisconsiners are going to have a problem with that?​

Why should that be a problem? They have 49 other US states to go to. Do they want to hog the whole country for themselves?

 

[P F Tinmore]

...it is ALSO the homeland of the Jewish people...

Only because your fantasy novel tells you it is. If I were a Roman Catholic, would that give me the right to go to Italy and kick an Italian and his familly out of his home?

If you as a Jewish person want to live in a future Muslim Palestine, I wouldn't stop you or object, and neither would most Palestinians. Problem with the Zionist colonists there at the moment is, they don't just want to live there, they want to rule there as colonial masters in an exclusively Jewish state.

If you could show that they had stolen your home in 1948 and evicted you from it

There will never be a Jew living in a muslim Palestine the muslims have made this one of their laws. What Zionist colonists are those, which nation sent them out to colonise Palestine for that nation ?. How about a link showing that the Jews want to rule over all of Palestine as colonial masters. ( remember that parts of Egypt, Syria and all of Jordan are Palestine )

There will never be a Jew living in a muslim Palestine the muslims have made this one of their laws.​

Link?

 

[P F Tinmore]

I have a Mandate question and this would be the thread to ask it. The history seems so convoluted I can't find a straight answer from unbiased sources.

In various debates I've heard claimed that ALL of "Palestine" was given to the Jews by the Mandate, therefore the Palestinians can or should be sent to Jordan. Yet, when Israel declared independence - it did so with specific borders that are not the Mandate's. It then took more territory when it won a war waged against it. That territory is what is called "Occupied Territories" or, more recently by historical revisionists "disputed territories". What I'm wondering is, in terms of international law - what really belongs to Israel, and how much legal force does the mandate wield? Was the mandate later over-ruled by other agreements? RoccoR

Actually none of the land was given to the Jews. The Jews were to live in Palestine as Palestinians citizens with the rest of the Palestinians.

Article 7 Palestine Mandate

 

[P F Tinmore]

Coyote, et al,

Well a lot of people have muddled the waters on this. This is the short answer. You can skip the background "COMMENT", as it evolved,

The Mandate did not promise anything to either the Arabs or Jewish. The Mandate was technically a record of the Agreement between the various Allied Powers AND a directive issued by the Allied Powers to the British, as the Mandatory, as to the fundamentals of what in the broad sense needed to be done. It was not written or use as an authority for either the Arab or the Jews. The Mandate did not, even once, speak directly to either the Arabs or the Jews. It was mandate (an official record of direction and guidance) speaking from the Allied Powers to the British. Neither the Arabs or the Jewish were parties to the Mandate, and nor did the Mandate actually direct, command, promise, or impose guidance upon either the Arabs or the Jewish.

I have a Mandate question and this would be the thread to ask it. The history seems so convoluted I can't find a straight answer from unbiased sources.

In various debates I've heard claimed that ALL of "Palestine" was given to the Jews by the Mandate, therefore the Palestinians can or should be sent to Jordan. Yet, when Israel declared independence - it did so with specific borders that are not the Mandate's. It then took more territory when it won a war waged against it. That territory is what is called "Occupied Territories" or, more recently by historical revisionists "disputed territories". What I'm wondering is, in terms of international law - what really belongs to Israel, and how much legal force does the mandate wield? Was the mandate later over-ruled by other agreements? RoccoR

(COMMENT)

The Balfour Declaration was a quasi-Diplomatic Note written by Lord Balfour (as the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary) to Lord Rothschild, a prominent citizen in the British business community and well known leader in the British Jewish community. Lord Rothschild, son of Baron Ferdinand von Rothschild, Austrian Noble, was being asked to relay information to the Zionist Federation; on a decision approved by the British Cabinet. It too was not a promise. It was really a diplomatic notice of a Cabinet Level decision; in a very broad brush stroke. But this broad language would be used over again in the San Remo Covenant (an agreement between Allied Powers), and the Mandate (a directive from the Allied Powers).

If there were implied promises (mind you --- these implied promise were not made to either the Arab or Jewish People) that would be that:

• The establishment of a Jewish National Home (JNH) in Palestine.
• And the intention the the JNH would not adversely impact the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish People.​

It should be remembered that the that the framework language of the Mandate was crafted in 1920, and by by the Allied Powers at San Remo. They already knew what was going to happen before the Paulet-Newcombe Agreement ( British and French governments regarding the position and nature of the boundary between the Mandates of Palestine and Mesopotamia, attributed to Great Britain, and the Mandate of Syria and the Lebanon, attributed to France ) had been finalized. It should also be remembered that the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration had already passed their authority to the Civil Administration for the territory on 1 July 1920 (See Interim Report); less than three months after the San Remo Convention, but a couple years before the Mandate was finalized.

All the various "White Papers" and "Commission Reports" are just that. They are take as observation and interpretations at the time they were written and under the political pressures of the day. They are not authoritative or directive in nature. They do not have the force of law or establish an obligation. And you would be hard pressed to find one that was written for either the Arabs or Jewish People.

In April 1946, the League of Nations had its last meeting; with all assets having been transferred to the United Nations as the successor organization. Under Chapter XII, Article 77(1a) of the UN Charter (1945), all active Mandates were transferred to the UN Trusteeship System.

There were many events that happened during the War in which resulted in "impressions" and "consequences" but none the less had no obligations attached to it. One of the coincidence of the time (1946 to 1948), was the realization that the British Government, in an attempt to placate the Arab Palestinians and slow immigration down, Rammed the Ship and and tactically boarded the vessel. In the end, the ship with nearly 4000 Jewish men, women and children were forced way and eventually to the Port of Hamburg. The Jews were forced off the ship by British armed forces and transported to a couple Displaced Persons Camp Camps near Lubek. The coincidence was that on the day the UN Special Commission for Palestine (UNSCOP) arrived in Palestine, so did the Exodus.; and the stories told did not go unheard. Having said that, the actual policies of the US and Britain did not just apply to the Jews, but also to the Russians and the Polish --- and went something like this:

By late June the British Foreign Office decided to repatriate all Russian POWs, callously disregarding the consequences of such a policy (early in the war Stalin had made it clear that any Soviet citizens who were even temporarily out of Communist control would be regarded as traitors. Official Orders threatened “deserters” and POWs with draconian measures). On June 24, 1944, Patrick Dean, the Assistant Legal Adviser of the Foreign Office, declared: “In due course all those with whom the Soviet authorities desire to deal must … be handed over to them, and we are not concerned with the fact that they may be shot or otherwise more harshly dealt with than they might be under English law.”
From The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1980 (Vol. 1, No. 4), pages 371-376.​

The Jews, coming from Poland, Russia and Britain all passed on the stories. It was not a shining moment in Western Ethics. Certainly, all the way forward to the British withdraw, while many people may have had the impression that promises were made; nothing was promised at all until General Assembly Resolution 181(II).

Most Respectfully,
R

while many people may have had the impression that promises were made; nothing was promised at all until General Assembly Resolution 181(II).​

Which was really a non binding recommendation that was never implemented by the Security Council. Not much of a promise.

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

You said "application to" and nothing about "statehood."

Nothing in the Mandate defined the meaning of the phrase Jewish National Home. That could be accomplished in any number of ways.

ARTICLE 25 OF THE PALESTINE MANDATE. Territory known as Trans-Jordan."

" In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine"

"In the application of the Mandate to Trans-Jordan, the action which, in Palestine, is taken by the Administration of the latter country, "

(COMMENT)

Trans-Jordan was included in the Mandate. That is not the same as saying it is to be considered in the JNH requirements.

Most Respectfully,
R

Then we are in agreement.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Not only do I agree with this sliver --- I'll go a bit further.

montelatici, et al,

You said "application to" and nothing about "statehood."

Nothing in the Mandate defined the meaning of the phrase Jewish National Home. That could be accomplished in any number of ways.

ARTICLE 25 OF THE PALESTINE MANDATE. Territory known as Trans-Jordan."

" In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine"

"In the application of the Mandate to Trans-Jordan, the action which, in Palestine, is taken by the Administration of the latter country, "

(COMMENT)

Trans-Jordan was included in the Mandate. That is not the same as saying it is to be considered in the JNH requirements.

Most Respectfully,
R

Then we are in agreement.

(COMMENT)

There was really never any explicit intention expressed by the Council (LoN), the Allied Powers, or the Mandate Foreign Office, that was conveyed in an authoritative manner that the Territory to which the Mandate applied, less (Trans)-Jordan, was either to be all Arab or all Jewish.

Many people, in positions of authority, said many things --- that were never set formally under set under signet and seal, Order in Council, binding Resolution, Protocol or Treaty, that actually enjoined the Arab and the Jewish to accept pressed conditions. While "P F Tinmore" and I argue the point as to whether A/RES/181(II) was implemented as publicly announced for the record, we agree that it was none binding --- but more an explicit opportunity for acceptance. And that the tactical losses of the Intervening Arab League force, together with the military losses of the Hostile Arab Palestinians, created the negotiated expansion of Israeli controlled territory.

Many people misunderstand the intention of Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine and its end political product. In Part I -- Section F -- Chapter 4 Admission to Membership in the UN, it was clearly stated that: " 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." And that --- ultimately --- both the Jewish and the Arab used this promise of "sympathetic consideration" in the independence process.

(OF INTEREST)

This question on territory has been aa aperiodic issue since the days of the Armistice Negotiations. There was a peculiar order of operation here (a political maneuver that I don't fully appreciate even today). In March thru April 1949, the four Armistice Agreements were signed. In this, it should be noticed that the negotiated frontier of Israel was now ≈ 78% of the former territory under Mandate; less the territory granted Independence and formal recognition of Emir as the Sovereign. On 11 May 1949 UN Resolution 273(III) - Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations was approved. It was THEN that on 12 May 1949 (day after membership) that the Lausanne Protocol was signed. It was in the framework of this Protocol is were the questions regarding refugees, the respect for their rights and the preservation of their property, as well as territorial and other questions, were open for discussion in the forum of the Arab and Israeli Delegations and moderated by the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine (UNCCP).

It is very interesting that in the limitations and authority of the outcome of the Protocol Discussions, territorial adjustment could be made were necessary. While P F Tinmore is right, when he says that the Armistice Lines negotiated in March and April were not formal borders; the subsequence UNCCP Protocol discussions gave new incite. Since that time (May 1949) until the present, the negotiations with the Egyptians and Jordanians have progressed and culminated in formalized permanent international boundaries between them (each without prejudice to the Arab Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip). Lebanon still uses the Armistice Line (Blue Line), and is afraid the government will spark trouble with the Hezbollah Jihadist if it goes further into negotiations. The Syrian Government practices the time honored strategy to negotiation from a position of strength, and not attempting to fix something that is not broke.

EXCERPTS: The Third Progress Report UNCCP May 1949:

Israel's refusal to accept the principle of repatriation is cited by the Arab delegations as the reason for their own reserved and reticent attitude on territorial questions. ...

The delegation of Israel declared that if the Gaza area were incorporated in the State of Israel, its Government would be prepared to accept as citizens of Israel the entire Arab population of the area, both inhabitants and refugees, on the understanding that resettlement of the refugees in Israeli territory would be subject to such international aid as would be available for refugee resettlement in general. ...

Regarding repatriation, resettlement and rehabilitation of the refugees, there is little to add to the statements made in the Commission's Second Report. The Arab Delegations continue to hold the view that the first step must be acceptance by the Government of Israel of the principle set forth in the resolution of 11 December 1948 concerning the repatriation of refugees who wish to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours.
​

In short, it seems that the Israel refusal to accept the principle of "repatriation" --- and the Arab Palestinian refusal to accept any principle on territorial issues. It was the same then as it is at present; only the faces change. The advancements made by the Arab Palestinians, in any terms you would like to frame it, is dismal. The Arab Palestinian are sovereign over the same amount of territory today (none), as they did when the Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated over a century ago (none).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

Not only do I agree with this sliver --- I'll go a bit further.

montelatici, et al,

You said "application to" and nothing about "statehood."

Nothing in the Mandate defined the meaning of the phrase Jewish National Home. That could be accomplished in any number of ways.

ARTICLE 25 OF THE PALESTINE MANDATE. Territory known as Trans-Jordan."

" In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine"

"In the application of the Mandate to Trans-Jordan, the action which, in Palestine, is taken by the Administration of the latter country, "

(COMMENT)

Trans-Jordan was included in the Mandate. That is not the same as saying it is to be considered in the JNH requirements.

Most Respectfully,
R

Then we are in agreement.

(COMMENT)

There was really never any explicit intention expressed by the Council (LoN), the Allied Powers, or the Mandate Foreign Office, that was conveyed in an authoritative manner that the Territory to which the Mandate applied, less (Trans)-Jordan, was either to be all Arab or all Jewish.

Many people, in positions of authority, said many things --- that were never set formally under set under signet and seal, Order in Council, binding Resolution, Protocol or Treaty, that actually enjoined the Arab and the Jewish to accept pressed conditions. While "P F Tinmore" and I argue the point as to whether A/RES/181(II) was implemented as publicly announced for the record, we agree that it was none binding --- but more an explicit opportunity for acceptance. And that the tactical losses of the Intervening Arab League force, together with the military losses of the Hostile Arab Palestinians, created the negotiated expansion of Israeli controlled territory.

Many people misunderstand the intention of Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine and its end political product. In Part I -- Section F -- Chapter 4 Admission to Membership in the UN, it was clearly stated that: " 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." And that --- ultimately --- both the Jewish and the Arab used this promise of "sympathetic consideration" in the independence process.

(OF INTEREST)

This question on territory has been aa aperiodic issue since the days of the Armistice Negotiations. There was a peculiar order of operation here (a political maneuver that I don't fully appreciate even today). In March thru April 1949, the four Armistice Agreements were signed. In this, it should be noticed that the negotiated frontier of Israel was now ≈ 78% of the former territory under Mandate; less the territory granted Independence and formal recognition of Emir as the Sovereign. On 11 May 1949 UN Resolution 273(III) - Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations was approved. It was THEN that on 12 May 1949 (day after membership) that the Lausanne Protocol was signed. It was in the framework of this Protocol is were the questions regarding refugees, the respect for their rights and the preservation of their property, as well as territorial and other questions, were open for discussion in the forum of the Arab and Israeli Delegations and moderated by the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine (UNCCP).

It is very interesting that in the limitations and authority of the outcome of the Protocol Discussions, territorial adjustment could be made were necessary. While P F Tinmore is right, when he says that the Armistice Lines negotiated in March and April were not formal borders; the subsequence UNCCP Protocol discussions gave new incite. Since that time (May 1949) until the present, the negotiations with the Egyptians and Jordanians have progressed and culminated in formalized permanent international boundaries between them (each without prejudice to the Arab Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip). Lebanon still uses the Armistice Line (Blue Line), and is afraid the government will spark trouble with the Hezbollah Jihadist if it goes further into negotiations. The Syrian Government practices the time honored strategy to negotiation from a position of strength, and not attempting to fix something that is not broke.

EXCERPTS: The Third Progress Report UNCCP May 1949:

Israel's refusal to accept the principle of repatriation is cited by the Arab delegations as the reason for their own reserved and reticent attitude on territorial questions. ...

The delegation of Israel declared that if the Gaza area were incorporated in the State of Israel, its Government would be prepared to accept as citizens of Israel the entire Arab population of the area, both inhabitants and refugees, on the understanding that resettlement of the refugees in Israeli territory would be subject to such international aid as would be available for refugee resettlement in general. ...

Regarding repatriation, resettlement and rehabilitation of the refugees, there is little to add to the statements made in the Commission's Second Report. The Arab Delegations continue to hold the view that the first step must be acceptance by the Government of Israel of the principle set forth in the resolution of 11 December 1948 concerning the repatriation of refugees who wish to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours.
​

In short, it seems that the Israel refusal to accept the principle of "repatriation" --- and the Arab Palestinian refusal to accept any principle on territorial issues. It was the same then as it is at present; only the faces change. The advancements made by the Arab Palestinians, in any terms you would like to frame it, is dismal. The Arab Palestinian are sovereign over the same amount of territory today (none), as they did when the Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated over a century ago (none).

Most Respectfully,
R

There was never any intention to allow the non-Jews of Palestine to be sovereign over any part of the territory of Palestine. The citizenship offer with respect to the inhabitants of Gaza is just a further confirmation that the Jews of Israel have never had any intention of allowing any other state, other than the Jewish state to rule in the territory of Palestine.

 

[Hollie]

montelatici, et al,

Not only do I agree with this sliver --- I'll go a bit further.

montelatici, et al,

You said "application to" and nothing about "statehood."

Nothing in the Mandate defined the meaning of the phrase Jewish National Home. That could be accomplished in any number of ways.

ARTICLE 25 OF THE PALESTINE MANDATE. Territory known as Trans-Jordan."

" In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine"

"In the application of the Mandate to Trans-Jordan, the action which, in Palestine, is taken by the Administration of the latter country, "

(COMMENT)

Trans-Jordan was included in the Mandate. That is not the same as saying it is to be considered in the JNH requirements.

Most Respectfully,
R

Then we are in agreement.

(COMMENT)

There was really never any explicit intention expressed by the Council (LoN), the Allied Powers, or the Mandate Foreign Office, that was conveyed in an authoritative manner that the Territory to which the Mandate applied, less (Trans)-Jordan, was either to be all Arab or all Jewish.

Many people, in positions of authority, said many things --- that were never set formally under set under signet and seal, Order in Council, binding Resolution, Protocol or Treaty, that actually enjoined the Arab and the Jewish to accept pressed conditions. While "P F Tinmore" and I argue the point as to whether A/RES/181(II) was implemented as publicly announced for the record, we agree that it was none binding --- but more an explicit opportunity for acceptance. And that the tactical losses of the Intervening Arab League force, together with the military losses of the Hostile Arab Palestinians, created the negotiated expansion of Israeli controlled territory.

Many people misunderstand the intention of Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine and its end political product. In Part I -- Section F -- Chapter 4 Admission to Membership in the UN, it was clearly stated that: " 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." And that --- ultimately --- both the Jewish and the Arab used this promise of "sympathetic consideration" in the independence process.

(OF INTEREST)

This question on territory has been aa aperiodic issue since the days of the Armistice Negotiations. There was a peculiar order of operation here (a political maneuver that I don't fully appreciate even today). In March thru April 1949, the four Armistice Agreements were signed. In this, it should be noticed that the negotiated frontier of Israel was now ≈ 78% of the former territory under Mandate; less the territory granted Independence and formal recognition of Emir as the Sovereign. On 11 May 1949 UN Resolution 273(III) - Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations was approved. It was THEN that on 12 May 1949 (day after membership) that the Lausanne Protocol was signed. It was in the framework of this Protocol is were the questions regarding refugees, the respect for their rights and the preservation of their property, as well as territorial and other questions, were open for discussion in the forum of the Arab and Israeli Delegations and moderated by the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine (UNCCP).

It is very interesting that in the limitations and authority of the outcome of the Protocol Discussions, territorial adjustment could be made were necessary. While P F Tinmore is right, when he says that the Armistice Lines negotiated in March and April were not formal borders; the subsequence UNCCP Protocol discussions gave new incite. Since that time (May 1949) until the present, the negotiations with the Egyptians and Jordanians have progressed and culminated in formalized permanent international boundaries between them (each without prejudice to the Arab Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip). Lebanon still uses the Armistice Line (Blue Line), and is afraid the government will spark trouble with the Hezbollah Jihadist if it goes further into negotiations. The Syrian Government practices the time honored strategy to negotiation from a position of strength, and not attempting to fix something that is not broke.

EXCERPTS: The Third Progress Report UNCCP May 1949:

Israel's refusal to accept the principle of repatriation is cited by the Arab delegations as the reason for their own reserved and reticent attitude on territorial questions. ...

The delegation of Israel declared that if the Gaza area were incorporated in the State of Israel, its Government would be prepared to accept as citizens of Israel the entire Arab population of the area, both inhabitants and refugees, on the understanding that resettlement of the refugees in Israeli territory would be subject to such international aid as would be available for refugee resettlement in general. ...

Regarding repatriation, resettlement and rehabilitation of the refugees, there is little to add to the statements made in the Commission's Second Report. The Arab Delegations continue to hold the view that the first step must be acceptance by the Government of Israel of the principle set forth in the resolution of 11 December 1948 concerning the repatriation of refugees who wish to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours.
​

In short, it seems that the Israel refusal to accept the principle of "repatriation" --- and the Arab Palestinian refusal to accept any principle on territorial issues. It was the same then as it is at present; only the faces change. The advancements made by the Arab Palestinians, in any terms you would like to frame it, is dismal. The Arab Palestinian are sovereign over the same amount of territory today (none), as they did when the Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated over a century ago (none).

Most Respectfully,
R

There was never any intention to allow the non-Jews of Palestine to be sovereign over any part of the territory of Palestine. The citizenship offer with respect to the inhabitants of Gaza is just a further confirmation that the Jews of Israel have never had any intention of allowing any other state, other than the Jewish state to rule in the territory of Palestine.

Your shrill screeching serves only to buttress your self-imposed ignorance. In both action and policy, Israel has demonstrated a willingness to return land in exchange for peace.

You should take the time to read the Hamas Charter for an instructive lesson in the "intentions" you falsely and mindlessly accuse Israel of pursuing. The fascist Charter makes explicit references to the Islamo-waqf thingy. Raise your hand and ask questions when you don't understand Islamo-fascism.

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

Not only do I agree with this sliver --- I'll go a bit further.

montelatici, et al,

You said "application to" and nothing about "statehood."

Nothing in the Mandate defined the meaning of the phrase Jewish National Home. That could be accomplished in any number of ways.

ARTICLE 25 OF THE PALESTINE MANDATE. Territory known as Trans-Jordan."

" In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine"

"In the application of the Mandate to Trans-Jordan, the action which, in Palestine, is taken by the Administration of the latter country, "

(COMMENT)

Trans-Jordan was included in the Mandate. That is not the same as saying it is to be considered in the JNH requirements.

Most Respectfully,
R

Then we are in agreement.

(COMMENT)

There was really never any explicit intention expressed by the Council (LoN), the Allied Powers, or the Mandate Foreign Office, that was conveyed in an authoritative manner that the Territory to which the Mandate applied, less (Trans)-Jordan, was either to be all Arab or all Jewish.

Many people, in positions of authority, said many things --- that were never set formally under set under signet and seal, Order in Council, binding Resolution, Protocol or Treaty, that actually enjoined the Arab and the Jewish to accept pressed conditions. While "P F Tinmore" and I argue the point as to whether A/RES/181(II) was implemented as publicly announced for the record, we agree that it was none binding --- but more an explicit opportunity for acceptance. And that the tactical losses of the Intervening Arab League force, together with the military losses of the Hostile Arab Palestinians, created the negotiated expansion of Israeli controlled territory.

Many people misunderstand the intention of Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine and its end political product. In Part I -- Section F -- Chapter 4 Admission to Membership in the UN, it was clearly stated that: " 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." And that --- ultimately --- both the Jewish and the Arab used this promise of "sympathetic consideration" in the independence process.

(OF INTEREST)

This question on territory has been aa aperiodic issue since the days of the Armistice Negotiations. There was a peculiar order of operation here (a political maneuver that I don't fully appreciate even today). In March thru April 1949, the four Armistice Agreements were signed. In this, it should be noticed that the negotiated frontier of Israel was now ≈ 78% of the former territory under Mandate; less the territory granted Independence and formal recognition of Emir as the Sovereign. On 11 May 1949 UN Resolution 273(III) - Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations was approved. It was THEN that on 12 May 1949 (day after membership) that the Lausanne Protocol was signed. It was in the framework of this Protocol is were the questions regarding refugees, the respect for their rights and the preservation of their property, as well as territorial and other questions, were open for discussion in the forum of the Arab and Israeli Delegations and moderated by the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine (UNCCP).

It is very interesting that in the limitations and authority of the outcome of the Protocol Discussions, territorial adjustment could be made were necessary. While P F Tinmore is right, when he says that the Armistice Lines negotiated in March and April were not formal borders; the subsequence UNCCP Protocol discussions gave new incite. Since that time (May 1949) until the present, the negotiations with the Egyptians and Jordanians have progressed and culminated in formalized permanent international boundaries between them (each without prejudice to the Arab Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip). Lebanon still uses the Armistice Line (Blue Line), and is afraid the government will spark trouble with the Hezbollah Jihadist if it goes further into negotiations. The Syrian Government practices the time honored strategy to negotiation from a position of strength, and not attempting to fix something that is not broke.

EXCERPTS: The Third Progress Report UNCCP May 1949:

Israel's refusal to accept the principle of repatriation is cited by the Arab delegations as the reason for their own reserved and reticent attitude on territorial questions. ...

The delegation of Israel declared that if the Gaza area were incorporated in the State of Israel, its Government would be prepared to accept as citizens of Israel the entire Arab population of the area, both inhabitants and refugees, on the understanding that resettlement of the refugees in Israeli territory would be subject to such international aid as would be available for refugee resettlement in general. ...

Regarding repatriation, resettlement and rehabilitation of the refugees, there is little to add to the statements made in the Commission's Second Report. The Arab Delegations continue to hold the view that the first step must be acceptance by the Government of Israel of the principle set forth in the resolution of 11 December 1948 concerning the repatriation of refugees who wish to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours.
​

In short, it seems that the Israel refusal to accept the principle of "repatriation" --- and the Arab Palestinian refusal to accept any principle on territorial issues. It was the same then as it is at present; only the faces change. The advancements made by the Arab Palestinians, in any terms you would like to frame it, is dismal. The Arab Palestinian are sovereign over the same amount of territory today (none), as they did when the Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated over a century ago (none).

Most Respectfully,
R

And that the tactical losses of the Intervening Arab League force, together with the military losses of the Hostile Arab Palestinians, created the negotiated expansion of Israeli controlled territory.

Negotiated by Whom?

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

Not only do I agree with this sliver --- I'll go a bit further.

montelatici, et al,

You said "application to" and nothing about "statehood."

Nothing in the Mandate defined the meaning of the phrase Jewish National Home. That could be accomplished in any number of ways.

ARTICLE 25 OF THE PALESTINE MANDATE. Territory known as Trans-Jordan."

" In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine"

"In the application of the Mandate to Trans-Jordan, the action which, in Palestine, is taken by the Administration of the latter country, "

(COMMENT)

Trans-Jordan was included in the Mandate. That is not the same as saying it is to be considered in the JNH requirements.

Most Respectfully,
R

Then we are in agreement.

(COMMENT)

There was really never any explicit intention expressed by the Council (LoN), the Allied Powers, or the Mandate Foreign Office, that was conveyed in an authoritative manner that the Territory to which the Mandate applied, less (Trans)-Jordan, was either to be all Arab or all Jewish.

Many people, in positions of authority, said many things --- that were never set formally under set under signet and seal, Order in Council, binding Resolution, Protocol or Treaty, that actually enjoined the Arab and the Jewish to accept pressed conditions. While "P F Tinmore" and I argue the point as to whether A/RES/181(II) was implemented as publicly announced for the record, we agree that it was none binding --- but more an explicit opportunity for acceptance. And that the tactical losses of the Intervening Arab League force, together with the military losses of the Hostile Arab Palestinians, created the negotiated expansion of Israeli controlled territory.

Many people misunderstand the intention of Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine and its end political product. In Part I -- Section F -- Chapter 4 Admission to Membership in the UN, it was clearly stated that: " 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." And that --- ultimately --- both the Jewish and the Arab used this promise of "sympathetic consideration" in the independence process.

(OF INTEREST)

This question on territory has been aa aperiodic issue since the days of the Armistice Negotiations. There was a peculiar order of operation here (a political maneuver that I don't fully appreciate even today). In March thru April 1949, the four Armistice Agreements were signed. In this, it should be noticed that the negotiated frontier of Israel was now ≈ 78% of the former territory under Mandate; less the territory granted Independence and formal recognition of Emir as the Sovereign. On 11 May 1949 UN Resolution 273(III) - Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations was approved. It was THEN that on 12 May 1949 (day after membership) that the Lausanne Protocol was signed. It was in the framework of this Protocol is were the questions regarding refugees, the respect for their rights and the preservation of their property, as well as territorial and other questions, were open for discussion in the forum of the Arab and Israeli Delegations and moderated by the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine (UNCCP).

It is very interesting that in the limitations and authority of the outcome of the Protocol Discussions, territorial adjustment could be made were necessary. While P F Tinmore is right, when he says that the Armistice Lines negotiated in March and April were not formal borders; the subsequence UNCCP Protocol discussions gave new incite. Since that time (May 1949) until the present, the negotiations with the Egyptians and Jordanians have progressed and culminated in formalized permanent international boundaries between them (each without prejudice to the Arab Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip). Lebanon still uses the Armistice Line (Blue Line), and is afraid the government will spark trouble with the Hezbollah Jihadist if it goes further into negotiations. The Syrian Government practices the time honored strategy to negotiation from a position of strength, and not attempting to fix something that is not broke.

EXCERPTS: The Third Progress Report UNCCP May 1949:

Israel's refusal to accept the principle of repatriation is cited by the Arab delegations as the reason for their own reserved and reticent attitude on territorial questions. ...

The delegation of Israel declared that if the Gaza area were incorporated in the State of Israel, its Government would be prepared to accept as citizens of Israel the entire Arab population of the area, both inhabitants and refugees, on the understanding that resettlement of the refugees in Israeli territory would be subject to such international aid as would be available for refugee resettlement in general. ...

Regarding repatriation, resettlement and rehabilitation of the refugees, there is little to add to the statements made in the Commission's Second Report. The Arab Delegations continue to hold the view that the first step must be acceptance by the Government of Israel of the principle set forth in the resolution of 11 December 1948 concerning the repatriation of refugees who wish to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours.
​

In short, it seems that the Israel refusal to accept the principle of "repatriation" --- and the Arab Palestinian refusal to accept any principle on territorial issues. It was the same then as it is at present; only the faces change. The advancements made by the Arab Palestinians, in any terms you would like to frame it, is dismal. The Arab Palestinian are sovereign over the same amount of territory today (none), as they did when the Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated over a century ago (none).

Most Respectfully,
R

Since that time (May 1949) until the present, the negotiations with the Egyptians and Jordanians have progressed and culminated in formalized permanent international boundaries between them​

That seems strange because the 1949 UN armistice agreements with Egypt and Jordan (that Israel signed) calls the territory behind those borders Palestine.

By signing those treaties Israel agreed that the territory is Palestine yet later comes by and declares borders on Palestinian territory.