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

[Phoenall]

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

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

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

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

Of course he wouldn't as that would mean he was illegitimate as well as being two faced and a hypocrite. After all his forbears invaded America, Mexico, Brazil etc. and stole the natives land and property for their own gain on the say so of their religions high priest. Making it a direct command from God.

 

[Phoenall]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Phoenall]

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

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

Israel did not come into being by military conquest. It came into being the same way, and through the same legal instruments that Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey and Jordan did. Israel was just the only one who had to defend itself. And is still the only one who has to conceptually defend itself as well as physically defend itself.

Are you saying that a colonial power has the right to defend itself from the native population.

I can't buy into that concept.

Which colonial power is that then as I cant find any mention of a colonial power in Palestine other than the arab muslims

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who is the colonial power?

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

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

Israel did not come into being by military conquest. It came into being the same way, and through the same legal instruments that Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey and Jordan did. Israel was just the only one who had to defend itself. And is still the only one who has to conceptually defend itself as well as physically defend itself.

Are you saying that a colonial power has the right to defend itself from the native population.

I can't buy into that concept.

(COMMENT)

Are you kidding me?

Just like you have the right to defend yourself against an attacker, so it is the case --- that Israel has the right to defend itself against aggressors. There is no "LAW" (get that --- a Law) that permits the Arab-Palestinian to threaten or use force against the Israeli citizens. In fact it is just the exact opposite.

Most Respectfully,
R

So the natives are the aggressors and the foreigners are the defenders.

No it is the foreign arab muslims that are the aggressors and the Jews by right of international law that are the defenders. You still have not produced the link showing when the land was transferred to arab muslim sovereignty

 

[Phoenall]

So the natives are the aggressors and the foreigners are the defenders.

There are no colonizers and there are no foreigners in this discussion. That is the concept which is faulty.

The Jewish people are indigenous people. The Jewish people have had a continuous presence on the land for 4000 years. The Jewish people lost their sovereignty and their homeland due to ethnic cleansing by a belligerent enemy. The Jewish people, by right of their historical sovereignty and their continued and ancient presence, are reconstituting their national homeland.

The only way to get around this -- the only way to deny this -- is to believe that ethnic cleansing is a valid and legal way to remove sovereignty from an indigenous people.

How can Europeans be indigenous to Palestine? The Palestinians are the native people of Palestine regardless of the religion they adopted through the centuries. Non-Christians could not have had a continuous presence. Once Christianity became the state religion of the Roman (Byzantine) Empire, non-Christians converted from the Roman and other religions. Non-Christians, including Jews only returned to the area with the Muslim conquest.

How can European Catholics be indigenous to the whole of the America's. The first nations people are Indigenous, you and your cult of proto Jews are not. You are lucky to trace your ancestry back further than 5 generations in America, the Jews of the world can trace theirs back 500 generations to Palestine. Why have a cut off date of 300 C.E., is it because you know that the Jews were indigenous to the land for the preceding 2,500 years. Also you forget that it was only Jerusalem they were denied \access to and not the whole of Samaria and Judea. Your words sound very petulant when you make false claims about non Christians not having a contiguous presence on the land without providing any real proof other than anti semitic lies and Jew hatred propaganda. As everyone who can read knows the muslims in the early 7C stated that the land of Palestine was the Jews national home, and the Christians were recent colonisers and invaders

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are twisting the fact here. It is not like this happened overnight.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who is the colonial power?

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

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

Israel did not come into being by military conquest. It came into being the same way, and through the same legal instruments that Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey and Jordan did. Israel was just the only one who had to defend itself. And is still the only one who has to conceptually defend itself as well as physically defend itself.

Are you saying that a colonial power has the right to defend itself from the native population.

I can't buy into that concept.

(COMMENT)

Are you kidding me?

Just like you have the right to defend yourself against an attacker, so it is the case --- that Israel has the right to defend itself against aggressors. There is no "LAW" (get that --- a Law) that permits the Arab-Palestinian to threaten or use force against the Israeli citizens. In fact it is just the exact opposite.

Most Respectfully,
R

So the natives are the aggressors and the foreigners are the defenders.

(COMMENT)

The Allied Powers, having accepted ALL title and rights from the former sovereign, arranged for the immigration of Jewish People to the territory to which the Allied Powers held title and rights. The Allied Powers had this legal authority and mandate to effect, for the purpose of building a Jewish National Home. The Allied Powers, through the Mandatory had already passed 77% of the original territory into Arab hands to create and Arab Kingdom.

The immigrants, may be considered foreigners to the Arabs Palestinians; but they were legal residence that had been encouraged to immigrate.

It was the Arab Palestinian that began to create a hostile environment for the Jewish Immigrants. Anytime a people have to face a hostile element that openly initiated offensive actions against them, they have the right to defend themselves.

You are trying to politicize a normal human reaction; that is to form a safe and secure environment (Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs).

The fact that the inhabitance of the former Occupied Enemy Territory (OETA), lead by a incited belief that they had some exclusive title and rights, does not given them any moral, legal, or otherwise any other grounds to become offensive (the Arab Revolt begins in 1916; largely orchestrated by Sherif Hussein bin Ali with the intention of securing independence from the ruling Ottoman). The Riots of 1920 in Jerusalem in British-controlled part of OETA , incited by Arab religious leaders, led to violent assaults on Jerusalem Jews. Chief among these Religious Leaders was Amin al-Husseini (himself a former enemy Ottoman Army Officer); who would ultimately become the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. (For his part in the incitement to riot, al-Husseini was sentenced prison but escaped to Syria before incarceration.)

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

Rocco et al:

Article 20 clearly obliges the signers of the Covenant that any obligation inconsistent with the Covenant be abrogated prior to signing the Covenant.

ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.

Article 22 extended rights to the inhabitants of the former territories of the Axis powers.

"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."

Article 22 did not exclude the inhabitants of Palestine.

When the British signed the Covenant they represented that previous agreements, inconsistent with the Covenant, had been abrogated, including the Balfour Declaration.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

That is you interpretation. The Covenant (1919), does not limit the Council of the League of Nations; as to what can and can be done.

Article 20 deals with obligations PRIOR to signing the Covenant. The Article 20 does not interfere with Treaties of the Allied Powers or the Mandates assigned by the League of Nations.

I find it unfathomable that the Palestinians of today, can look back a Century and tell what the intentions were of the League of Nations and Allied Powers wrote and did.

Rocco et al:

Article 20 clearly obliges the signers of the Covenant that any obligation inconsistent with the Covenant be abrogated prior to signing the Covenant.

ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.

Article 22 extended rights to the inhabitants of the former territories of the Axis powers.

"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."

Article 22 did not exclude the inhabitants of Palestine.

When the British signed the Covenant they represented that previous agreements, inconsistent with the Covenant, had been abrogated, including the Balfour Declaration.

(COMMENT)

The Balfour Declaration is not an agreement; but, a statement of intent by one of the Allied Powers. That statement of intent was then agreed to by the convention of the Allied Powers at San Remo (1920); made up of member of the Council to the League. It is not like these are entirely different sets of people. The Council, the Allied Powers, and the convention at San Remo were, essentially influenced by the same people and powers.

Article 22 did not specifically include or exclude a specific people. So you can not imply that the inhabitants of Palestine (which had not been defined yet, as it was not a Ottoman political subdivision) as either included or excluded (the Covenant takes no specific notice at all of the inhabitance to the 6 Sanjuk of the Vilayet of Beirut, the 4 Sanjuk to the Vilayet of Syria, or the Independent Sanjuk of Jerusalem). It say "certain communities." More than three-quarters of the inhabitance of the territory that would later be subject to the Mandate, was very early on, identified as Palestine (under Mandate). The Emir (Faisal) established the first centralized governmental system in what is now modern Jordan on 11 April, 1921; and on 15 May, 1923, the Mandatory (Britain) formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah (and on 22 March, 1946, HM The King (Britian) recognizes Transjordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Emir as the sovereign thereof).

The Council of the League of Nations assigned the Mandate and criteria for the establishment of a Jewish National Home within the Territory covered by the Mandate. And the Council was provided an annual report pertaining to the Mandate.

The Covenant does not adversely impact the future Treaties (1919 and into the future); and does not make anything that is executed pursuant to the League of Nations approved Mandate contrary or inconsistent to the Covenant. AND as necessary, the future treaties and agreement that were considered by the Council without objection, were deemed consistent with their intentions. It is all the same people.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Nobody has posted anything to the contrary.

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

Show where that is incorrect

From 1917 the LoN ( sovereign land owners )​

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

Sorry but when they signed the treaties with first the Ottomans and then the Turks that was claiming sovereignty under any international law you care to use. That is where your theory goes all to pieces, the treaties that were agreed and signed in 1917 giving over the land to the LoN as reparations of war ( war booty ).
If as you claim the LoN did not acquire sovereignty then they could not give the land to the arab muslims, making all those nations peoples stateless and the land free for all. This means that the Palestinians do not have a claim to any land and should leave Israel.

You lose again through stupid pig headedness

If as you claim the LoN did not acquire sovereignty then they could not give the land to the arab muslims,

They didn't have to "give" it to anyone. The land passed to the inhabitants.

Under what treaty/guidelines/charter ?

The Treaty of Lausanne, the LoN covenant, the citizenship order of 1925, all reiterating customary international law.

Personal private property is protected and "state lands" are owned collectively by the citizens.

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

That is you interpretation. The Covenant (1919), does not limit the Council of the League of Nations; as to what can and can be done.

Article 20 deals with obligations PRIOR to signing the Covenant. The Article 20 does not interfere with Treaties of the Allied Powers or the Mandates assigned by the League of Nations.

I find it unfathomable that the Palestinians of today, can look back a Century and tell what the intentions were of the League of Nations and Allied Powers wrote and did.

Rocco et al:

Article 20 clearly obliges the signers of the Covenant that any obligation inconsistent with the Covenant be abrogated prior to signing the Covenant.

ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.

Article 22 extended rights to the inhabitants of the former territories of the Axis powers.

"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."

Article 22 did not exclude the inhabitants of Palestine.

When the British signed the Covenant they represented that previous agreements, inconsistent with the Covenant, had been abrogated, including the Balfour Declaration.

(COMMENT)

The Balfour Declaration is not an agreement; but, a statement of intent by one of the Allied Powers. That statement of intent was then agreed to by the convention of the Allied Powers at San Remo (1920); made up of member of the Council to the League. It is not like these are entirely different sets of people. The Council, the Allied Powers, and the convention at San Remo were, essentially influenced by the same people and powers.

Article 22 did not specifically include or exclude a specific people. So you can not imply that the inhabitants of Palestine (which had not been defined yet, as it was not a Ottoman political subdivision) as either included or excluded (the Covenant takes no specific notice at all of the inhabitance to the 6 Sanjuk of the Vilayet of Beirut, the 4 Sanjuk to the Vilayet of Syria, or the Independent Sanjuk of Jerusalem). It say "certain communities." More than three-quarters of the inhabitance of the territory that would later be subject to the Mandate, was very early on, identified as Palestine (under Mandate). The Emir (Faisal) established the first centralized governmental system in what is now modern Jordan on 11 April, 1921; and on 15 May, 1923, the Mandatory (Britain) formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah (and on 22 March, 1946, HM The King (Britian) recognizes Transjordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Emir as the sovereign thereof).

The Council of the League of Nations assigned the Mandate and criteria for the establishment of a Jewish National Home within the Territory covered by the Mandate. And the Council was provided an annual report pertaining to the Mandate.

The Covenant does not adversely impact the future Treaties (1919 and into the future); and does not make anything that is executed pursuant to the League of Nations approved Mandate contrary or inconsistent to the Covenant. AND as necessary, the future treaties and agreement that were considered by the Council without objection, were deemed consistent with their intentions. It is all the same people.

Most Respectfully,
R

Article 22 did not specifically include or exclude a specific people.​

It was a blanket article that included everyone and no exceptions were mentioned.

The Palestinians did not have to be included by name, but they would have had to been excluded by name. They were not.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is in the 1945 UN Charter that was based on already existing international law.

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

That is you interpretation. The Covenant (1919), does not limit the Council of the League of Nations; as to what can and can be done.

Article 20 deals with obligations PRIOR to signing the Covenant. The Article 20 does not interfere with Treaties of the Allied Powers or the Mandates assigned by the League of Nations.

I find it unfathomable that the Palestinians of today, can look back a Century and tell what the intentions were of the League of Nations and Allied Powers wrote and did.

Rocco et al:

Article 20 clearly obliges the signers of the Covenant that any obligation inconsistent with the Covenant be abrogated prior to signing the Covenant.

ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.

Article 22 extended rights to the inhabitants of the former territories of the Axis powers.

"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."

Article 22 did not exclude the inhabitants of Palestine.

When the British signed the Covenant they represented that previous agreements, inconsistent with the Covenant, had been abrogated, including the Balfour Declaration.

(COMMENT)

The Balfour Declaration is not an agreement; but, a statement of intent by one of the Allied Powers. That statement of intent was then agreed to by the convention of the Allied Powers at San Remo (1920); made up of member of the Council to the League. It is not like these are entirely different sets of people. The Council, the Allied Powers, and the convention at San Remo were, essentially influenced by the same people and powers.

Article 22 did not specifically include or exclude a specific people. So you can not imply that the inhabitants of Palestine (which had not been defined yet, as it was not a Ottoman political subdivision) as either included or excluded (the Covenant takes no specific notice at all of the inhabitance to the 6 Sanjuk of the Vilayet of Beirut, the 4 Sanjuk to the Vilayet of Syria, or the Independent Sanjuk of Jerusalem). It say "certain communities." More than three-quarters of the inhabitance of the territory that would later be subject to the Mandate, was very early on, identified as Palestine (under Mandate). The Emir (Faisal) established the first centralized governmental system in what is now modern Jordan on 11 April, 1921; and on 15 May, 1923, the Mandatory (Britain) formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah (and on 22 March, 1946, HM The King (Britian) recognizes Transjordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Emir as the sovereign thereof).

The Council of the League of Nations assigned the Mandate and criteria for the establishment of a Jewish National Home within the Territory covered by the Mandate. And the Council was provided an annual report pertaining to the Mandate.

The Covenant does not adversely impact the future Treaties (1919 and into the future); and does not make anything that is executed pursuant to the League of Nations approved Mandate contrary or inconsistent to the Covenant. AND as necessary, the future treaties and agreement that were considered by the Council without objection, were deemed consistent with their intentions. It is all the same people.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Balfour Declaration is not an agreement; but, a statement of intent by one of the Allied Powers.​

Indeed, it had zero legal weight.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You are twisting the fact here. It is not like this happened overnight.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who is the colonial power?

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

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

Israel did not come into being by military conquest. It came into being the same way, and through the same legal instruments that Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey and Jordan did. Israel was just the only one who had to defend itself. And is still the only one who has to conceptually defend itself as well as physically defend itself.

Are you saying that a colonial power has the right to defend itself from the native population.

I can't buy into that concept.

(COMMENT)

Are you kidding me?

Just like you have the right to defend yourself against an attacker, so it is the case --- that Israel has the right to defend itself against aggressors. There is no "LAW" (get that --- a Law) that permits the Arab-Palestinian to threaten or use force against the Israeli citizens. In fact it is just the exact opposite.

Most Respectfully,
R

So the natives are the aggressors and the foreigners are the defenders.

(COMMENT)

The Allied Powers, having accepted ALL title and rights from the former sovereign, arranged for the immigration of Jewish People to the territory to which the Allied Powers held title and rights. The Allied Powers had this legal authority and mandate to effect, for the purpose of building a Jewish National Home. The Allied Powers, through the Mandatory had already passed 77% of the original territory into Arab hands to create and Arab Kingdom.

The immigrants, may be considered foreigners to the Arabs Palestinians; but they were legal residence that had been encouraged to immigrate.

It was the Arab Palestinian that began to create a hostile environment for the Jewish Immigrants. Anytime a people have to face a hostile element that openly initiated offensive actions against them, they have the right to defend themselves.

You are trying to politicize a normal human reaction; that is to form a safe and secure environment (Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs).

View attachment 57223​

The fact that the inhabitance of the former Occupied Enemy Territory (OETA), lead by a incited belief that they had some exclusive title and rights, does not given them any moral, legal, or otherwise any other grounds to become offensive (the Arab Revolt begins in 1916; largely orchestrated by Sherif Hussein bin Ali with the intention of securing independence from the ruling Ottoman). The Riots of 1920 in Jerusalem in British-controlled part of OETA , incited by Arab religious leaders, led to violent assaults on Jerusalem Jews. Chief among these Religious Leaders was Amin al-Husseini (himself a former enemy Ottoman Army Officer); who would ultimately become the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. (For his part in the incitement to riot, al-Husseini was sentenced prison but escaped to Syria before incarceration.)

Most Respectfully,
R

The Allied Powers had this legal authority and mandate to effect, for the purpose of building a Jewish National Home.​

How did the Mandate interpret the meaning of Jewish National Home?

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

That is you interpretation. The Covenant (1919), does not limit the Council of the League of Nations; as to what can and can be done.

Article 20 deals with obligations PRIOR to signing the Covenant. The Article 20 does not interfere with Treaties of the Allied Powers or the Mandates assigned by the League of Nations.

I find it unfathomable that the Palestinians of today, can look back a Century and tell what the intentions were of the League of Nations and Allied Powers wrote and did.

Rocco et al:

Article 20 clearly obliges the signers of the Covenant that any obligation inconsistent with the Covenant be abrogated prior to signing the Covenant.

ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations.

Article 22 extended rights to the inhabitants of the former territories of the Axis powers.

"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."

Article 22 did not exclude the inhabitants of Palestine.

When the British signed the Covenant they represented that previous agreements, inconsistent with the Covenant, had been abrogated, including the Balfour Declaration.

(COMMENT)

The Balfour Declaration is not an agreement; but, a statement of intent by one of the Allied Powers. That statement of intent was then agreed to by the convention of the Allied Powers at San Remo (1920); made up of member of the Council to the League. It is not like these are entirely different sets of people. The Council, the Allied Powers, and the convention at San Remo were, essentially influenced by the same people and powers.

Article 22 did not specifically include or exclude a specific people. So you can not imply that the inhabitants of Palestine (which had not been defined yet, as it was not a Ottoman political subdivision) as either included or excluded (the Covenant takes no specific notice at all of the inhabitance to the 6 Sanjuk of the Vilayet of Beirut, the 4 Sanjuk to the Vilayet of Syria, or the Independent Sanjuk of Jerusalem). It say "certain communities." More than three-quarters of the inhabitance of the territory that would later be subject to the Mandate, was very early on, identified as Palestine (under Mandate). The Emir (Faisal) established the first centralized governmental system in what is now modern Jordan on 11 April, 1921; and on 15 May, 1923, the Mandatory (Britain) formally recognized the Emirate of Transjordan as a state under the leadership of Emir Abdullah (and on 22 March, 1946, HM The King (Britian) recognizes Transjordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Emir as the sovereign thereof).

The Council of the League of Nations assigned the Mandate and criteria for the establishment of a Jewish National Home within the Territory covered by the Mandate. And the Council was provided an annual report pertaining to the Mandate.

The Covenant does not adversely impact the future Treaties (1919 and into the future); and does not make anything that is executed pursuant to the League of Nations approved Mandate contrary or inconsistent to the Covenant. AND as necessary, the future treaties and agreement that were considered by the Council without objection, were deemed consistent with their intentions. It is all the same people.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco et al,

The Covenant specifically addresses prior agreements in contravention with the terms of the Covenant. The Balfour Declaration was issued prior to the signing of the Covenant and is in contravention of the Covenant.

The Covenant addresses future agreements that are in contravention of the Covenant.

Agreements that contravened Article 22 would be in contravention of the Covenant, by definition.

The inhabitants of the territories subject of Article 22 were the inhabitants of the territories at the time of the signing. The inhabitants of Palestine were therefore included, by definition.

None of your previous post makes any sense. Your inability to understand the precise and plain English of the Covenant is extraordinary.

The British simply ignored the terms of the Covenant.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This recent reliance of arguments based on undocumented Customary Law is getting ridiculous.

It is in the 1945 UN Charter that was based on already existing international law.

(COMMENT)

In fact, some of the new 1945 concepts (self determination, territorial acquisition by force) actually reverse established common law.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Shusha]

The Balfour Declaration is not an agreement; but, a statement of intent by one of the Allied Powers.​

Indeed, it had zero legal weight.

Until it was incorporated into the San Remo Resolution.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Rocco et al,

The Covenant specifically addresses prior agreements in contravention with the terms of the Covenant. The Balfour Declaration was issued prior to the signing of the Covenant and is in contravention of the Covenant.

The Covenant addresses future agreements that are in contravention of the Covenant.

Agreements that contravened Article 22 would be in contravention of the Covenant, by definition.

The inhabitants of the territories subject of Article 22 were the inhabitants of the territories at the time of the signing. The inhabitants of Palestine were therefore included, by definition.

None of your previous post makes any sense. Your inability to understand the precise and plain English of the Covenant is extraordinary.

The British simply ignored the terms of the Covenant.

(COMMENT)

First the Balfour Declaration is NOT AN AGREEMENT. It is a notice of intention.

There is nothing that has been accepted or awarded by the Council to the League of Nations that is contrary by Covenant.

The Palestinians were not mentioned in Article 22. Not all inhabitants where given autonomy in the Covenant. The Covenant, pre-dates the Treaty. And the newer Treaty take precedence.

I understand the Covenant quite well.

22(4) "Certain Territories" is not equivalent to "all territories."

22(2) "Best Methods" are not the "only Methods" and Article 22 does not demand that any particular mandate achieve a specific objective..

You are desperately trying to find something that the Allied Powers and the League of nations did, that you can say, denied the Arab-Palestinian something they were due. Well that is the wrong path.

Article 16: Treaty of Lausanne
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.
​

It was up to the Allied Powers to decide. No matter what the Covenant says, the waring parties have spoken. And, it was (unequivocally) stated at the outset, that the intention was to create a Jewish National Home; as past down from the Council of the League of Nations to the British as a Mandate.

The Allied Powers tried to give more than 80% of the Territory to which the Mandate applied to the Arabs, and the Hashemites accepted, but the Arab Palestinians rejected. That is the end game. Today, seven decades later, the State of Israel is a thriving and modern nation which the Arab did everything to destroy. There is no advantage to the Region or to the world in allowing the Arab Palestinian to damage and destroy a nation that makes such contributions to humanity as a whole. Certainly the last thing that anyone wants if for the expansion of another failed state that cannot stand on it own.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, well no one was really in the mood to ask the inhabitance of a territory that supported an opposition Empire in conflict, what their legal opinion was.

Indeed, it had zero legal weight.

(COMMENT)

You know, this solution did not happen just once. It happened twice. The powers-that-be understood the legalities and the objections of the inhabitance, of the former Occupied Enemy Territory. Just as the League of Nations issued a Mandate that supported the establishment of a Jewish National Home, so it was the the UN set the conditions, and established the steps preparatory to independence that allow the Jewish People to exercise their right of self-determination, which brought the Jewish State into existence.

And ever since then, one facet or another of the Arab-Palestinian, focusing on conflict, have been trying to excise the Jewish People from the State of Israel.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

Rocco et al,

The Covenant specifically addresses prior agreements in contravention with the terms of the Covenant. The Balfour Declaration was issued prior to the signing of the Covenant and is in contravention of the Covenant.

The Covenant addresses future agreements that are in contravention of the Covenant.

Agreements that contravened Article 22 would be in contravention of the Covenant, by definition.

The inhabitants of the territories subject of Article 22 were the inhabitants of the territories at the time of the signing. The inhabitants of Palestine were therefore included, by definition.

None of your previous post makes any sense. Your inability to understand the precise and plain English of the Covenant is extraordinary.

The British simply ignored the terms of the Covenant.

(COMMENT)

First the Balfour Declaration is NOT AN AGREEMENT. It is a notice of intention.

There is nothing that has been accepted or awarded by the Council to the League of Nations that is contrary by Covenant.

The Palestinians were not mentioned in Article 22. Not all inhabitants where given autonomy in the Covenant. The Covenant, pre-dates the Treaty. And the newer Treaty take precedence.

I understand the Covenant quite well.

22(4) "Certain Territories" is not equivalent to "all territories."

22(2) "Best Methods" are not the "only Methods" and Article 22 does not demand that any particular mandate achieve a specific objective..

You are desperately trying to find something that the Allied Powers and the League of nations did, that you can say, denied the Arab-Palestinian something they were due. Well that is the wrong path.

Article 16: Treaty of Lausanne
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.
​

It was up to the Allied Powers to decide. No matter what the Covenant says, the waring parties have spoken. And, it was (unequivocally) stated at the outset, that the intention was to create a Jewish National Home; as past down from the Council of the League of Nations to the British as a Mandate.

The Allied Powers tried to give more than 80% of the Territory to which the Mandate applied to the Arabs, and the Hashemites accepted, but the Arab Palestinians rejected. That is the end game. Today, seven decades later, the State of Israel is a thriving and modern nation which the Arab did everything to destroy. There is no advantage to the Region or to the world in allowing the Arab Palestinian to damage and destroy a nation that makes such contributions to humanity as a whole. Certainly the last thing that anyone wants if for the expansion of another failed state that cannot stand on it own.

Most Respectfully,
R

If the Balfour Declaration was not an agreement, then the British would not have used it to usurp, illegally, the terms of the Covenant.

Israel is a western outpost. No different than Algeria, Rhodesia or South Africa before their return to native rule. Israel as the source of much of the conflict between the west and Muslims outweighs any over advertised "contributions". Most are based on stolen technology anyway.

You are basically a racist Rocco. You believe that Europeans should rule over non-Europeans and have a visceral hate of Arabs, Christian and Muslims.

Israel will revert to native rule eventually, it is just a matter of time. Whether it turns out to be a Rhodesian or South African result depends on the Israelis.

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

Rocco et al,

The Covenant specifically addresses prior agreements in contravention with the terms of the Covenant. The Balfour Declaration was issued prior to the signing of the Covenant and is in contravention of the Covenant.

The Covenant addresses future agreements that are in contravention of the Covenant.

Agreements that contravened Article 22 would be in contravention of the Covenant, by definition.

The inhabitants of the territories subject of Article 22 were the inhabitants of the territories at the time of the signing. The inhabitants of Palestine were therefore included, by definition.

None of your previous post makes any sense. Your inability to understand the precise and plain English of the Covenant is extraordinary.

The British simply ignored the terms of the Covenant.

(COMMENT)

First the Balfour Declaration is NOT AN AGREEMENT. It is a notice of intention.

There is nothing that has been accepted or awarded by the Council to the League of Nations that is contrary by Covenant.

The Palestinians were not mentioned in Article 22. Not all inhabitants where given autonomy in the Covenant. The Covenant, pre-dates the Treaty. And the newer Treaty take precedence.

I understand the Covenant quite well.

22(4) "Certain Territories" is not equivalent to "all territories."

22(2) "Best Methods" are not the "only Methods" and Article 22 does not demand that any particular mandate achieve a specific objective..

You are desperately trying to find something that the Allied Powers and the League of nations did, that you can say, denied the Arab-Palestinian something they were due. Well that is the wrong path.

Article 16: Treaty of Lausanne
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.
​

It was up to the Allied Powers to decide. No matter what the Covenant says, the waring parties have spoken. And, it was (unequivocally) stated at the outset, that the intention was to create a Jewish National Home; as past down from the Council of the League of Nations to the British as a Mandate.

The Allied Powers tried to give more than 80% of the Territory to which the Mandate applied to the Arabs, and the Hashemites accepted, but the Arab Palestinians rejected. That is the end game. Today, seven decades later, the State of Israel is a thriving and modern nation which the Arab did everything to destroy. There is no advantage to the Region or to the world in allowing the Arab Palestinian to damage and destroy a nation that makes such contributions to humanity as a whole. Certainly the last thing that anyone wants if for the expansion of another failed state that cannot stand on it own.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Allied Powers tried to give more than 80% of the Territory to which the Mandate applied to the Arabs, and the Hashemites accepted, but the Arab Palestinians rejected.​

Using the term "give" in this context is ludicrous. What land can you "give" to a people who have already been living there for an untold number of generations? And what would you do with those people if you did not "give" them that land?