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

[montelatici]

Given that the native people in Palestine, under Israeli rule, represent 50 times the pro-rata population of Native Americans in the U.S. The native population of the U.S. has been numerically represented at a higher rate. 21 x 50 = 1050/~3 (times more years of the U.S)= 350. To equal the U.S. Israel would have had to have 350 native people in parliament.

Except for the fact that the Jews ARE the native ppl.

Not at all. The Jews that went to Palestine were native to Europe and elswhere, not Palestine. The native people of Palestine are the Muslim and Christian inhabitants who were there when the Jews began their colonization of Palestine. The early Zionists themselves understood this and stated this clearly, in print.

Native Jews were in the 1st Israeli govt along with native and immigrant Arabs and Jews, who were both from Mesopotamia, Arabia,.Africa and Europe.

And it doesn't seem Arabs actually wanted independence from the Arabian ruling dynasties.

From 1922 you ignorant idiot. The Palestinians were demanding independence from the British at the outset of the Mandate.

"PALESTINE.

"CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE
PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
AND THE
ZIONIST ORGANISATION.

Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
JUNE, 1922.
LONDON:

HOTEL CECIL,
London, W.C.,
February 21st, 1922.

Sir,

We wish to express our thanks to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for his courtesy in allowing us to see the draft of a proposed Palestine Order in Council embodying a scheme of Government for Palestine, and to discuss the same in our capacity of representatives of the Arab People of Palestine.

• 
  
  We would, therefore, submit the following observations:—

Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable.
If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration.

We, therefore, hold that the proposed constitution is wholly unsatisfactory, because:—

• 
  
  (a) In the preamble to the Palestine Order in Council "the declaration of November 2nd, 1917, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People" is made a basis for this Order; the People of Palestine cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion.
  (b) In Articles 4-9 of the Order dealing with the manner of appointment of the High Commissioner and his powers, Palestine is considered as a colony of the lowest order, whereas according to paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, Palestine comes under Grade A, where "certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone."
  
  (c) The Executive, dealt with in Articles 10-16, is in no way responsible to the Legislative Council.
  

• 
  (d) Articles 17-28 dealing with the Legislative Council prescribe that this Council "shall consist of 25 members in addition to the High Commissioner"—"who shall exercise a casting vote, in case of an equality of votes." This brings the total number of votes to 27. Of these, 10 shall be official members holding office under the High Commissioner, and two members shall be nominated by him. Thus the High Commissioner commands 14 out of the 27 votes. Of the 12 elected members there will probably be 10 or 11 that would represent the Arab majority, who would be unable to carry any measure against the official preponderance of votes.

It is thus apparent that too much power is given to a High Commissioner whom we will suppose is impartial. But when, as is the case with the present High Commissioner, he is a Zionist, i.e. a member of the organisation which is prompting the flood of alien Jew immigration into Palestine, whose officials as well as those members appointed by him must, naturally, carry out his policy, and when one or two of the 12 elected members will most probably be Zionists, then the Zionist policy of the Government will be carried out under a constitutional guise, whereas at present it is illegal, against the rights and wishes of the people, and maintained by force of arms alone.
Article 22 gives the High Commissioner the power at any time to prorogue or dissolve the Council, without the provision that he must call a new Council within a stated time.

Article 23 gives the High Commissioner the right to veto any measure passed by the Council.

We further submit in this connection that it is not in keeping with the constitutional spirit to place the Head of the Executive at the head of the Legislative and to introduce into this latter, as members, officials of the State. This invariably leads to the Executive becoming arbitrary since it is placed in the position of accused and judge at the same time.

We also notice with astonishment that 10 members constitute a quorum. This is less than half the total number of Members, and makes it possible for the 10 official members to carry on the work of legislation should circumstances, for any reason whatever, prevent the other members from being present. In which case the power of the Legislative Council becomes a mere shadow and not a reality.

• 
  
  (e) By the provisions of Articles 33, 46 and 67, Palestine is considered as a Crown Colony, and the High Commissioner as the Governor of a Colony or British possession with the rights of confirming sentences of death, of deporting any person without trial and without allowing that person the right of appeal against the order for deportation.
  (f) The recognition of Hebrew as an official language of the State as in Article 80 is another proof of the desire to foster Zionist nationalism in Palestine, when only about 10 per cent, of the present Jewish inhabitants of the country speak that language. This innovation is wholly unwarranted and adds to the expenses of the State, which derives its main revenues from the Arab population.
  
  (g) The High Commissioner by Article 81 is given the power to obstruct any appeal to the League of Nations.
  
  (h) Lastly, we read in Article 83 that the High Commissioner may, after obtaining the approval of the Secretary of State, vary, annul or add to the provisions of this Order in Council. These powers of the High Commissioner render this Order in Council as if it had not been.
  

For these reasons we find that no useful purpose would be served by discussing in detail the draft of "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
The Delegation requests that the constitution for Palestine should—

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)

 

[P F Tinmore]

Given that the native people in Palestine, under Israeli rule, represent 50 times the pro-rata population of Native Americans in the U.S. The native population of the U.S. has been numerically represented at a higher rate. 21 x 50 = 1050/~3 (times more years of the U.S)= 350. To equal the U.S. Israel would have had to have 350 native people in parliament.

Except for the fact that the Jews ARE the native ppl.

Not at all. The Jews that went to Palestine were native to Europe and elswhere, not Palestine. The native people of Palestine are the Muslim and Christian inhabitants who were there when the Jews began their colonization of Palestine. The early Zionists themselves understood this and stated this clearly, in print.

Native Jews were in the 1st Israeli govt along with native and immigrant Arabs and Jews, who were both from Mesopotamia, Arabia,.Africa and Europe.

And it doesn't seem Arabs actually wanted independence from the Arabian ruling dynasties.

From 1922 you ignorant idiot. The Palestinians were demanding independence from the British at the outset of the Mandate.

"PALESTINE.

"CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE
PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
AND THE
ZIONIST ORGANISATION.

Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
JUNE, 1922.
LONDON:

HOTEL CECIL,
London, W.C.,
February 21st, 1922.

Sir,

We wish to express our thanks to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for his courtesy in allowing us to see the draft of a proposed Palestine Order in Council embodying a scheme of Government for Palestine, and to discuss the same in our capacity of representatives of the Arab People of Palestine.

• 
  
  
  • 
    
    We would, therefore, submit the following observations:—

Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable.
If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration.

We, therefore, hold that the proposed constitution is wholly unsatisfactory, because:—

• 
  
  
  • 
    
    (a) In the preamble to the Palestine Order in Council "the declaration of November 2nd, 1917, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People" is made a basis for this Order; the People of Palestine cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion.
    (b) In Articles 4-9 of the Order dealing with the manner of appointment of the High Commissioner and his powers, Palestine is considered as a colony of the lowest order, whereas according to paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, Palestine comes under Grade A, where "certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone."
    
    (c) The Executive, dealt with in Articles 10-16, is in no way responsible to the Legislative Council.

• 
  
  
  • 
    (d) Articles 17-28 dealing with the Legislative Council prescribe that this Council "shall consist of 25 members in addition to the High Commissioner"—"who shall exercise a casting vote, in case of an equality of votes." This brings the total number of votes to 27. Of these, 10 shall be official members holding office under the High Commissioner, and two members shall be nominated by him. Thus the High Commissioner commands 14 out of the 27 votes. Of the 12 elected members there will probably be 10 or 11 that would represent the Arab majority, who would be unable to carry any measure against the official preponderance of votes.

It is thus apparent that too much power is given to a High Commissioner whom we will suppose is impartial. But when, as is the case with the present High Commissioner, he is a Zionist, i.e. a member of the organisation which is prompting the flood of alien Jew immigration into Palestine, whose officials as well as those members appointed by him must, naturally, carry out his policy, and when one or two of the 12 elected members will most probably be Zionists, then the Zionist policy of the Government will be carried out under a constitutional guise, whereas at present it is illegal, against the rights and wishes of the people, and maintained by force of arms alone.
Article 22 gives the High Commissioner the power at any time to prorogue or dissolve the Council, without the provision that he must call a new Council within a stated time.

Article 23 gives the High Commissioner the right to veto any measure passed by the Council.

We further submit in this connection that it is not in keeping with the constitutional spirit to place the Head of the Executive at the head of the Legislative and to introduce into this latter, as members, officials of the State. This invariably leads to the Executive becoming arbitrary since it is placed in the position of accused and judge at the same time.

We also notice with astonishment that 10 members constitute a quorum. This is less than half the total number of Members, and makes it possible for the 10 official members to carry on the work of legislation should circumstances, for any reason whatever, prevent the other members from being present. In which case the power of the Legislative Council becomes a mere shadow and not a reality.

• 
  
  
  • 
    
    (e) By the provisions of Articles 33, 46 and 67, Palestine is considered as a Crown Colony, and the High Commissioner as the Governor of a Colony or British possession with the rights of confirming sentences of death, of deporting any person without trial and without allowing that person the right of appeal against the order for deportation.
    (f) The recognition of Hebrew as an official language of the State as in Article 80 is another proof of the desire to foster Zionist nationalism in Palestine, when only about 10 per cent, of the present Jewish inhabitants of the country speak that language. This innovation is wholly unwarranted and adds to the expenses of the State, which derives its main revenues from the Arab population.
    
    (g) The High Commissioner by Article 81 is given the power to obstruct any appeal to the League of Nations.
    
    (h) Lastly, we read in Article 83 that the High Commissioner may, after obtaining the approval of the Secretary of State, vary, annul or add to the provisions of this Order in Council. These powers of the High Commissioner render this Order in Council as if it had not been.

For these reasons we find that no useful purpose would be served by discussing in detail the draft of "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
The Delegation requests that the constitution for Palestine should—

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)

Excellent post. This blows a hole in Israel's bullshit that the Palestinians have always rejected a state when they have demanded one from day one.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

[ No Abdullah, it is not about Jerusalem and it is not about Settlements ]

hree Jews trapped in the Crater district of the port city were attacked by an armed mob; two were brutally murdered, the third was found alive but barely able to breathe.

For those old enough to remember, history appeared to be repeating itself.

Twenty years previously, in the wake of the UN vote to partition Palestine, Jewish businesses, stores, and homes had been attacked in Aden. Two Jewish schools were burned down. At the end of three days of violence in December 1947, more than 80 Jews were dead.

“There were not riots but murder,” Joseph Howard, a child at the time, later remembered.

A British commission of inquiry into the disturbances later found that “trigger happy” firing by soldiers of the Aden Protectorate Levies — an Arab military force trained and armed by the UK to protect its colony — were responsible for many of the Jewish deaths. These local forces, the inquiry concluded, were sympathetic to the rioters, and did not attempt to control them. The inquiry recommended British troops be permanently stationed in the colony.

(full article online)

As Jews evacuated from Aden bloodbath, a daring mission to rescue a Torah scroll

The inquiry recommended British troops be permanently stationed in the colony.

Israel is a colonial project.

The British called it a colony because they never meant for the Jewish to recreate their sovereign Nation.
Just as they gave away 78% to the Hashemites, they meant to keep the rest for themselves, as they had lost India.

British colony? Yes.

Jewish colony? No. But the recreation of what had to happen sooner or later.

The Jewish Nation/People being sovereign over their ancient homeland.

NOTHING colonial about it for the Jews.

Even the Zionists called it colonialism.

So what? They were Jews, descendants of the ancient Israelites. It was and is their ancient homeland.

They can call it whatever they want to call it.
They are still the indigenous people of the land with Every Right to resettle and recreate their Nation on their homeland.

That land does not have ANY OTHER indigenous people.
The Jewish People are the only ones, then and now.

The same language (Hebrew), the same currency (shekels), the same capital (Jerusalem), and the same names for the country (Israel, Judea), prove that the Jews are the indigenous ppl of that land. The nomadic Arabs can go back to Arabia (or, in Shirley Temper's case, Bosnia).

 

[montelatici]

The Palestinians are 1. Not nomadic and 2. Are not Arabians. They are the descendants indigenous people of the area from when the different areas within were called Canaan and Philistia, well before the Jews arrived. The Jews can go back to Europe and wherever else they came from.

 

[Sixties Fan]

The Palestinians are 1. Not nomadic and 2. Are not Arabians. They are the descendants indigenous people of the area from when the different areas within were called Canaan and Philistia, well before the Jews arrived. The Jews can go back to Europe and wherever else they came from.

The Palestinians are:

1) Arabs from Arabia, no matter how much you wish to lie for them, they will get very mad at you for saying that they are NOT Arabs.
Especially those who now call themselves Palestinians.
They never did not call themselves Arabs.

2) Most of the Arabs who now live in the former Mandate for Palestine immigrated into the area from the countries where they were living in, including in Arabia.

3) No, the "Palestinians" are not descendants of the people who lived on ancient Canaan before the Jews.
Why, because the Jews are composed of most of the people who lived in that area 3800 years ago.

The Jewish People/Nation are definitely BACK where they came from.
Ancient Canaan. Israel. Judea. Israel again.

Same area. Same place. Same Nation. Same people.




And as the ancient Hebrews would say

 

[montelatici]

The Palestinians are 1. Not nomadic and 2. Are not Arabians. They are the descendants indigenous people of the area from when the different areas within were called Canaan and Philistia, well before the Jews arrived. The Jews can go back to Europe and wherever else they came from.

The Palestinians are:

1) Arabs from Arabia, no matter how much you wish to lie for them, they will get very mad at you for saying that they are NOT Arabs.
Especially those who now call themselves Palestinians.
They never did not call themselves Arabs.

2) Most of the Arabs who now live in the former Mandate for Palestine immigrated into the area from the countries where they were living in, including in Arabia.

3) No, the "Palestinians" are not descendants of the people who lived on ancient Canaan before the Jews.
Why, because the Jews are composed of most of the people who lived in that area 3800 years ago.

The Jewish People/Nation are definitely BACK where they came from.
Ancient Canaan. Israel. Judea. Israel again.

Same area. Same place. Same Nation. Same people.




And as the ancient Hebrews would say

Arabs are Arabic speaking people. Arabs can be ethnically Berbers, as in the Maghreb, North Africans as in Egypt or generally Levantine as the Palestians, Lebanese etc. It would be like claiming Hispanics are all from Spain.

As far as the Palestinians:

"Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted to Christianity, and later Islam, not Arab in origin...."
Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted


As far as the European Jews that invaded and colonized Palestine, they are European:

"Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European"


Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European


Your fantasyland bullshit won't hunt.

 

[Sixties Fan]

The Palestinians are 1. Not nomadic and 2. Are not Arabians. They are the descendants indigenous people of the area from when the different areas within were called Canaan and Philistia, well before the Jews arrived. The Jews can go back to Europe and wherever else they came from.

The Palestinians are:

1) Arabs from Arabia, no matter how much you wish to lie for them, they will get very mad at you for saying that they are NOT Arabs.
Especially those who now call themselves Palestinians.
They never did not call themselves Arabs.

2) Most of the Arabs who now live in the former Mandate for Palestine immigrated into the area from the countries where they were living in, including in Arabia.

3) No, the "Palestinians" are not descendants of the people who lived on ancient Canaan before the Jews.
Why, because the Jews are composed of most of the people who lived in that area 3800 years ago.

The Jewish People/Nation are definitely BACK where they came from.
Ancient Canaan. Israel. Judea. Israel again.

Same area. Same place. Same Nation. Same people.




And as the ancient Hebrews would say

Arabs are Arabic speaking people. Arabs can be ethnically Berbers, as in the Maghreb, North Africans as in Egypt or generally Levantine as the Palestians, Lebanese etc. It would be like claiming Hispanics are all from Spain.

As far as the Palestinians:

"Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted to Christianity, and later Islam, not Arab in origin...."
Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted


As far as the European Jews that invaded and colonized Palestine, they are European:

"Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European"


Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European


Your fantasyland bullshit won't hunt.

LOL...

Go tell the Berbers that they are Arabs!!!

They will shoot you !!!

ROTFLOL

Jews coming from Europe are returning Jews to their ancient homeland. No invasion, simply going home.

Home is where the heart is

Keep repeating your debunked "science" until you fully believe it

 

[montelatici]

The Palestinians are 1. Not nomadic and 2. Are not Arabians. They are the descendants indigenous people of the area from when the different areas within were called Canaan and Philistia, well before the Jews arrived. The Jews can go back to Europe and wherever else they came from.

The Palestinians are:

1) Arabs from Arabia, no matter how much you wish to lie for them, they will get very mad at you for saying that they are NOT Arabs.
Especially those who now call themselves Palestinians.
They never did not call themselves Arabs.

2) Most of the Arabs who now live in the former Mandate for Palestine immigrated into the area from the countries where they were living in, including in Arabia.

3) No, the "Palestinians" are not descendants of the people who lived on ancient Canaan before the Jews.
Why, because the Jews are composed of most of the people who lived in that area 3800 years ago.

The Jewish People/Nation are definitely BACK where they came from.
Ancient Canaan. Israel. Judea. Israel again.

Same area. Same place. Same Nation. Same people.




And as the ancient Hebrews would say

Arabs are Arabic speaking people. Arabs can be ethnically Berbers, as in the Maghreb, North Africans as in Egypt or generally Levantine as the Palestians, Lebanese etc. It would be like claiming Hispanics are all from Spain.

As far as the Palestinians:

"Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted to Christianity, and later Islam, not Arab in origin...."
Native Population almost wholly descended from Jews who had been forcibly converted


As far as the European Jews that invaded and colonized Palestine, they are European:

"Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European"


Surprise: Ashkenazi Jews Are Genetically European


Your fantasyland bullshit won't hunt.

LOL...

Go tell the Berbers that they are Arabs!!!

They will shoot you !!!

ROTFLOL

Jews coming from Europe are returning Jews to their ancient homeland. No invasion, simply going home.

Home is where the heart is

Keep repeating your debunked "science" until you fully believe it

Exactly, they are Arab speaking people who identify as Arab. I lived in Tunisia for 3 years, don't try your stupid crap on me. There is nothing "debunked" about the science. What has long been debunked is your Zionist bullshit.

 

[rylah]

Given that the native people in Palestine, under Israeli rule, represent 50 times the pro-rata population of Native Americans in the U.S. The native population of the U.S. has been numerically represented at a higher rate. 21 x 50 = 1050/~3 (times more years of the U.S)= 350. To equal the U.S. Israel would have had to have 350 native people in parliament.

Except for the fact that the Jews ARE the native ppl.

Not at all. The Jews that went to Palestine were native to Europe and elswhere, not Palestine. The native people of Palestine are the Muslim and Christian inhabitants who were there when the Jews began their colonization of Palestine. The early Zionists themselves understood this and stated this clearly, in print.

Native Jews were in the 1st Israeli govt along with native and immigrant Arabs and Jews, who were both from Mesopotamia, Arabia,.Africa and Europe.

And it doesn't seem Arabs actually wanted independence from the Arabian ruling dynasties.

From 1922 you ignorant idiot. The Palestinians were demanding independence from the British at the outset of the Mandate.

"PALESTINE.

"CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE
PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
AND THE
ZIONIST ORGANISATION.

Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
JUNE, 1922.
LONDON:

HOTEL CECIL,
London, W.C.,
February 21st, 1922.

Sir,

We wish to express our thanks to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for his courtesy in allowing us to see the draft of a proposed Palestine Order in Council embodying a scheme of Government for Palestine, and to discuss the same in our capacity of representatives of the Arab People of Palestine.

• 
  
  
  • 
    
    We would, therefore, submit the following observations:—

Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable.
If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration.

We, therefore, hold that the proposed constitution is wholly unsatisfactory, because:—

• 
  
  
  • 
    
    (a) In the preamble to the Palestine Order in Council "the declaration of November 2nd, 1917, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People" is made a basis for this Order; the People of Palestine cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion.
    (b) In Articles 4-9 of the Order dealing with the manner of appointment of the High Commissioner and his powers, Palestine is considered as a colony of the lowest order, whereas according to paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, Palestine comes under Grade A, where "certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone."
    
    (c) The Executive, dealt with in Articles 10-16, is in no way responsible to the Legislative Council.

• 
  
  
  • 
    (d) Articles 17-28 dealing with the Legislative Council prescribe that this Council "shall consist of 25 members in addition to the High Commissioner"—"who shall exercise a casting vote, in case of an equality of votes." This brings the total number of votes to 27. Of these, 10 shall be official members holding office under the High Commissioner, and two members shall be nominated by him. Thus the High Commissioner commands 14 out of the 27 votes. Of the 12 elected members there will probably be 10 or 11 that would represent the Arab majority, who would be unable to carry any measure against the official preponderance of votes.

It is thus apparent that too much power is given to a High Commissioner whom we will suppose is impartial. But when, as is the case with the present High Commissioner, he is a Zionist, i.e. a member of the organisation which is prompting the flood of alien Jew immigration into Palestine, whose officials as well as those members appointed by him must, naturally, carry out his policy, and when one or two of the 12 elected members will most probably be Zionists, then the Zionist policy of the Government will be carried out under a constitutional guise, whereas at present it is illegal, against the rights and wishes of the people, and maintained by force of arms alone.
Article 22 gives the High Commissioner the power at any time to prorogue or dissolve the Council, without the provision that he must call a new Council within a stated time.

Article 23 gives the High Commissioner the right to veto any measure passed by the Council.

We further submit in this connection that it is not in keeping with the constitutional spirit to place the Head of the Executive at the head of the Legislative and to introduce into this latter, as members, officials of the State. This invariably leads to the Executive becoming arbitrary since it is placed in the position of accused and judge at the same time.

We also notice with astonishment that 10 members constitute a quorum. This is less than half the total number of Members, and makes it possible for the 10 official members to carry on the work of legislation should circumstances, for any reason whatever, prevent the other members from being present. In which case the power of the Legislative Council becomes a mere shadow and not a reality.

• 
  
  
  • 
    
    (e) By the provisions of Articles 33, 46 and 67, Palestine is considered as a Crown Colony, and the High Commissioner as the Governor of a Colony or British possession with the rights of confirming sentences of death, of deporting any person without trial and without allowing that person the right of appeal against the order for deportation.
    (f) The recognition of Hebrew as an official language of the State as in Article 80 is another proof of the desire to foster Zionist nationalism in Palestine, when only about 10 per cent, of the present Jewish inhabitants of the country speak that language. This innovation is wholly unwarranted and adds to the expenses of the State, which derives its main revenues from the Arab population.
    
    (g) The High Commissioner by Article 81 is given the power to obstruct any appeal to the League of Nations.
    
    (h) Lastly, we read in Article 83 that the High Commissioner may, after obtaining the approval of the Secretary of State, vary, annul or add to the provisions of this Order in Council. These powers of the High Commissioner render this Order in Council as if it had not been.

For these reasons we find that no useful purpose would be served by discussing in detail the draft of "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
The Delegation requests that the constitution for Palestine should—

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)

Excellent post. This blows a hole in Israel's bullshit that the Palestinians have always rejected a state when they have demanded one from day one.

Not at all, we all know that from day one they ceded the land to a King from Mecca, and demanded to be Syrian nationals.

My claim was totally different - they never wanted an independent country separate from the Arabian empire, from the waqf that connected all the Muslim lands into one unit, not to get rid of foreign ashraf dynasties like Hassayinis and Hashemites or other Syrian clans.

There's a big difference, when read in context of former demand, between a rule in a district of Syria and a state independent from foreign intervention. They were fine with the intervention as long as it was Arab and not Jewish.

If Arabs in Palestine wanted an independent state they wouldn't cede the control to another nation.

 

[rylah]

Lol montelatici link as usual contradicts his narrative:


Palestine inhabited by a mixed population

From the time the Arabians, along with their non-Arabian recruits, entered Palestine and Syria, they found and themselves added to what was "ethnologically a chaos of all the possible human combinations to which, when Palestine became a land of pilgrimage, a new admixture was added."1 Among the peoples who have been counted as "indigenous Palestinian Arabs" are Balkans, Greeks, Syrians, Latins, Egyptians, Turks, Armenians, Italians, Persians, Kurds, Germans, Afghans, Circassians, Bosnians, Sudanese, Samaritans, Algerians, Motawila, and Tartars.

John of Wurzburg lists for the middle era of the kingdom, Latins, Germans, Hungarians, Scots, Navarese, Bretons, English, Franks, Ruthenians, Bohemians, Greeks, Bulgarians, Georgians, Armenians, Syrians, Persian Nestorians, Indians,Egyptians, Copts, Maronites and natives from the Nile Delta. The list might be much extended, for it was the period of the great self-willed city-states in Europe, and Amalfi, Pisans, Genoese, Venetians, and Marseillais, who had quarters in all the bigger cities, owned villages, and had trading rights, would, in all probability, have submitted to any of the above designations, only under pressure. Besides all these, Norsemen, Danes, Frisians, Tartars, Jews, Arabs, Russians, Nubians, and Samaritans, can be safely added to the greatest human agglomeration drawn together in one small area of the globe."2

Greeks fled the Muslim rule in Greece, and landed in Palestine. By the mid-seventeenth century, the Greeks lived everywhere in the Holy Land--constituting about twenty percent of the population-and their authority dominated the villages.3
Between 1750 and 1766 Jaffa had been rebuilt, and had some five hundred houses. Turks, Arabs, Greeks and Armenians and a solitary Latin monk lived there, to attend to the wants of the thousands of pilgrims who had to be temporarily housed in the port before proceeding to Jerusalem.4....

 

[rylah]

Look at the list of languages just among the Muslims in 1931:
Afghan
Albanian
Arabic
Bosnian
Chinese
Circassian
English
French
German
Greek
Gypsy
Hebrew
Hindustani
Indian dialects
Javanese
Kurdish
Persian
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Sudanese
Takrurian
Turkish

 

[P F Tinmore]

Except for the fact that the Jews ARE the native ppl.

Not at all. The Jews that went to Palestine were native to Europe and elswhere, not Palestine. The native people of Palestine are the Muslim and Christian inhabitants who were there when the Jews began their colonization of Palestine. The early Zionists themselves understood this and stated this clearly, in print.

Native Jews were in the 1st Israeli govt along with native and immigrant Arabs and Jews, who were both from Mesopotamia, Arabia,.Africa and Europe.

And it doesn't seem Arabs actually wanted independence from the Arabian ruling dynasties.

From 1922 you ignorant idiot. The Palestinians were demanding independence from the British at the outset of the Mandate.

"PALESTINE.

"CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE
PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
AND THE
ZIONIST ORGANISATION.

Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
JUNE, 1922.
LONDON:

HOTEL CECIL,
London, W.C.,
February 21st, 1922.

Sir,

We wish to express our thanks to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for his courtesy in allowing us to see the draft of a proposed Palestine Order in Council embodying a scheme of Government for Palestine, and to discuss the same in our capacity of representatives of the Arab People of Palestine.

• 
  
  
  • 
    
    We would, therefore, submit the following observations:—

Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable.
If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration.

We, therefore, hold that the proposed constitution is wholly unsatisfactory, because:—

• 
  
  
  • 
    
    (a) In the preamble to the Palestine Order in Council "the declaration of November 2nd, 1917, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People" is made a basis for this Order; the People of Palestine cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion.
    (b) In Articles 4-9 of the Order dealing with the manner of appointment of the High Commissioner and his powers, Palestine is considered as a colony of the lowest order, whereas according to paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, Palestine comes under Grade A, where "certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone."
    
    (c) The Executive, dealt with in Articles 10-16, is in no way responsible to the Legislative Council.

• 
  
  
  • 
    (d) Articles 17-28 dealing with the Legislative Council prescribe that this Council "shall consist of 25 members in addition to the High Commissioner"—"who shall exercise a casting vote, in case of an equality of votes." This brings the total number of votes to 27. Of these, 10 shall be official members holding office under the High Commissioner, and two members shall be nominated by him. Thus the High Commissioner commands 14 out of the 27 votes. Of the 12 elected members there will probably be 10 or 11 that would represent the Arab majority, who would be unable to carry any measure against the official preponderance of votes.

It is thus apparent that too much power is given to a High Commissioner whom we will suppose is impartial. But when, as is the case with the present High Commissioner, he is a Zionist, i.e. a member of the organisation which is prompting the flood of alien Jew immigration into Palestine, whose officials as well as those members appointed by him must, naturally, carry out his policy, and when one or two of the 12 elected members will most probably be Zionists, then the Zionist policy of the Government will be carried out under a constitutional guise, whereas at present it is illegal, against the rights and wishes of the people, and maintained by force of arms alone.
Article 22 gives the High Commissioner the power at any time to prorogue or dissolve the Council, without the provision that he must call a new Council within a stated time.

Article 23 gives the High Commissioner the right to veto any measure passed by the Council.

We further submit in this connection that it is not in keeping with the constitutional spirit to place the Head of the Executive at the head of the Legislative and to introduce into this latter, as members, officials of the State. This invariably leads to the Executive becoming arbitrary since it is placed in the position of accused and judge at the same time.

We also notice with astonishment that 10 members constitute a quorum. This is less than half the total number of Members, and makes it possible for the 10 official members to carry on the work of legislation should circumstances, for any reason whatever, prevent the other members from being present. In which case the power of the Legislative Council becomes a mere shadow and not a reality.

• 
  
  
  • 
    
    (e) By the provisions of Articles 33, 46 and 67, Palestine is considered as a Crown Colony, and the High Commissioner as the Governor of a Colony or British possession with the rights of confirming sentences of death, of deporting any person without trial and without allowing that person the right of appeal against the order for deportation.
    (f) The recognition of Hebrew as an official language of the State as in Article 80 is another proof of the desire to foster Zionist nationalism in Palestine, when only about 10 per cent, of the present Jewish inhabitants of the country speak that language. This innovation is wholly unwarranted and adds to the expenses of the State, which derives its main revenues from the Arab population.
    
    (g) The High Commissioner by Article 81 is given the power to obstruct any appeal to the League of Nations.
    
    (h) Lastly, we read in Article 83 that the High Commissioner may, after obtaining the approval of the Secretary of State, vary, annul or add to the provisions of this Order in Council. These powers of the High Commissioner render this Order in Council as if it had not been.

For these reasons we find that no useful purpose would be served by discussing in detail the draft of "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
The Delegation requests that the constitution for Palestine should—

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)

Excellent post. This blows a hole in Israel's bullshit that the Palestinians have always rejected a state when they have demanded one from day one.

Not at all, we all know that from day one they ceded the land to a King from Mecca, and demanded to be Syrian nationals.

My claim was totally different - they never wanted an independent country separate from the Arabian empire, from the waqf that connected all the Muslim lands into one unit, not to get rid of foreign ashraf dynasties like Hassayinis and Hashemites or other Syrian clans.

There's a big difference, when read in context of former demand, between a rule in a district of Syria and a state independent from foreign intervention. They were fine with the intervention as long as it was Arab and not Jewish.

If Arabs in Palestine wanted an independent state they wouldn't cede the control to another nation.

They were fine with the intervention as long as it was Arab and not Jewish.

Could it be that the Arabs did not kick them out but the Jews did.

 

[rylah]

Not at all. The Jews that went to Palestine were native to Europe and elswhere, not Palestine. The native people of Palestine are the Muslim and Christian inhabitants who were there when the Jews began their colonization of Palestine. The early Zionists themselves understood this and stated this clearly, in print.

Native Jews were in the 1st Israeli govt along with native and immigrant Arabs and Jews, who were both from Mesopotamia, Arabia,.Africa and Europe.

And it doesn't seem Arabs actually wanted independence from the Arabian ruling dynasties.

From 1922 you ignorant idiot. The Palestinians were demanding independence from the British at the outset of the Mandate.

"PALESTINE.

"CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE
PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
AND THE
ZIONIST ORGANISATION.

Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
JUNE, 1922.
LONDON:

HOTEL CECIL,
London, W.C.,
February 21st, 1922.

Sir,

We wish to express our thanks to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for his courtesy in allowing us to see the draft of a proposed Palestine Order in Council embodying a scheme of Government for Palestine, and to discuss the same in our capacity of representatives of the Arab People of Palestine.

• 
  
  
  • 
    
    We would, therefore, submit the following observations:—

Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable.
If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration.

We, therefore, hold that the proposed constitution is wholly unsatisfactory, because:—

• 
  
  
  • 
    
    (a) In the preamble to the Palestine Order in Council "the declaration of November 2nd, 1917, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People" is made a basis for this Order; the People of Palestine cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion.
    (b) In Articles 4-9 of the Order dealing with the manner of appointment of the High Commissioner and his powers, Palestine is considered as a colony of the lowest order, whereas according to paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, Palestine comes under Grade A, where "certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone."
    
    (c) The Executive, dealt with in Articles 10-16, is in no way responsible to the Legislative Council.

• 
  
  
  • 
    (d) Articles 17-28 dealing with the Legislative Council prescribe that this Council "shall consist of 25 members in addition to the High Commissioner"—"who shall exercise a casting vote, in case of an equality of votes." This brings the total number of votes to 27. Of these, 10 shall be official members holding office under the High Commissioner, and two members shall be nominated by him. Thus the High Commissioner commands 14 out of the 27 votes. Of the 12 elected members there will probably be 10 or 11 that would represent the Arab majority, who would be unable to carry any measure against the official preponderance of votes.

It is thus apparent that too much power is given to a High Commissioner whom we will suppose is impartial. But when, as is the case with the present High Commissioner, he is a Zionist, i.e. a member of the organisation which is prompting the flood of alien Jew immigration into Palestine, whose officials as well as those members appointed by him must, naturally, carry out his policy, and when one or two of the 12 elected members will most probably be Zionists, then the Zionist policy of the Government will be carried out under a constitutional guise, whereas at present it is illegal, against the rights and wishes of the people, and maintained by force of arms alone.
Article 22 gives the High Commissioner the power at any time to prorogue or dissolve the Council, without the provision that he must call a new Council within a stated time.

Article 23 gives the High Commissioner the right to veto any measure passed by the Council.

We further submit in this connection that it is not in keeping with the constitutional spirit to place the Head of the Executive at the head of the Legislative and to introduce into this latter, as members, officials of the State. This invariably leads to the Executive becoming arbitrary since it is placed in the position of accused and judge at the same time.

We also notice with astonishment that 10 members constitute a quorum. This is less than half the total number of Members, and makes it possible for the 10 official members to carry on the work of legislation should circumstances, for any reason whatever, prevent the other members from being present. In which case the power of the Legislative Council becomes a mere shadow and not a reality.

• 
  
  
  • 
    
    (e) By the provisions of Articles 33, 46 and 67, Palestine is considered as a Crown Colony, and the High Commissioner as the Governor of a Colony or British possession with the rights of confirming sentences of death, of deporting any person without trial and without allowing that person the right of appeal against the order for deportation.
    (f) The recognition of Hebrew as an official language of the State as in Article 80 is another proof of the desire to foster Zionist nationalism in Palestine, when only about 10 per cent, of the present Jewish inhabitants of the country speak that language. This innovation is wholly unwarranted and adds to the expenses of the State, which derives its main revenues from the Arab population.
    
    (g) The High Commissioner by Article 81 is given the power to obstruct any appeal to the League of Nations.
    
    (h) Lastly, we read in Article 83 that the High Commissioner may, after obtaining the approval of the Secretary of State, vary, annul or add to the provisions of this Order in Council. These powers of the High Commissioner render this Order in Council as if it had not been.

For these reasons we find that no useful purpose would be served by discussing in detail the draft of "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
The Delegation requests that the constitution for Palestine should—

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)

Excellent post. This blows a hole in Israel's bullshit that the Palestinians have always rejected a state when they have demanded one from day one.

Not at all, we all know that from day one they ceded the land to a King from Mecca, and demanded to be Syrian nationals.

My claim was totally different - they never wanted an independent country separate from the Arabian empire, from the waqf that connected all the Muslim lands into one unit, not to get rid of foreign ashraf dynasties like Hassayinis and Hashemites or other Syrian clans.

There's a big difference, when read in context of former demand, between a rule in a district of Syria and a state independent from foreign intervention. They were fine with the intervention as long as it was Arab and not Jewish.

If Arabs in Palestine wanted an independent state they wouldn't cede the control to another nation.

They were fine with the intervention as long as it was Arab and not Jewish.

Could it be that the Arabs did not kick them out but the Jews did.

How did it work for them under the Hashemites in Jordan?
How did it work for the Jews?

I mean this notion that we should be ruled by an administrator from Mecca and a bunch of royal oligarchs sounds like feudalism, even if disguised under regional democracy the system is still not of independence but of centralized Arab confederation at best.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Native Jews were in the 1st Israeli govt along with native and immigrant Arabs and Jews, who were both from Mesopotamia, Arabia,.Africa and Europe.

And it doesn't seem Arabs actually wanted independence from the Arabian ruling dynasties.

From 1922 you ignorant idiot. The Palestinians were demanding independence from the British at the outset of the Mandate.

"PALESTINE.

"CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE
PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
AND THE
ZIONIST ORGANISATION.

Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
JUNE, 1922.
LONDON:

HOTEL CECIL,
London, W.C.,
February 21st, 1922.

Sir,

We wish to express our thanks to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for his courtesy in allowing us to see the draft of a proposed Palestine Order in Council embodying a scheme of Government for Palestine, and to discuss the same in our capacity of representatives of the Arab People of Palestine.

• 
  
  
  • 
    
    We would, therefore, submit the following observations:—

Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable.
If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration.

We, therefore, hold that the proposed constitution is wholly unsatisfactory, because:—

• 
  
  
  • 
    
    (a) In the preamble to the Palestine Order in Council "the declaration of November 2nd, 1917, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People" is made a basis for this Order; the People of Palestine cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion.
    (b) In Articles 4-9 of the Order dealing with the manner of appointment of the High Commissioner and his powers, Palestine is considered as a colony of the lowest order, whereas according to paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, Palestine comes under Grade A, where "certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone."
    
    (c) The Executive, dealt with in Articles 10-16, is in no way responsible to the Legislative Council.

• 
  
  
  • 
    (d) Articles 17-28 dealing with the Legislative Council prescribe that this Council "shall consist of 25 members in addition to the High Commissioner"—"who shall exercise a casting vote, in case of an equality of votes." This brings the total number of votes to 27. Of these, 10 shall be official members holding office under the High Commissioner, and two members shall be nominated by him. Thus the High Commissioner commands 14 out of the 27 votes. Of the 12 elected members there will probably be 10 or 11 that would represent the Arab majority, who would be unable to carry any measure against the official preponderance of votes.

It is thus apparent that too much power is given to a High Commissioner whom we will suppose is impartial. But when, as is the case with the present High Commissioner, he is a Zionist, i.e. a member of the organisation which is prompting the flood of alien Jew immigration into Palestine, whose officials as well as those members appointed by him must, naturally, carry out his policy, and when one or two of the 12 elected members will most probably be Zionists, then the Zionist policy of the Government will be carried out under a constitutional guise, whereas at present it is illegal, against the rights and wishes of the people, and maintained by force of arms alone.
Article 22 gives the High Commissioner the power at any time to prorogue or dissolve the Council, without the provision that he must call a new Council within a stated time.

Article 23 gives the High Commissioner the right to veto any measure passed by the Council.

We further submit in this connection that it is not in keeping with the constitutional spirit to place the Head of the Executive at the head of the Legislative and to introduce into this latter, as members, officials of the State. This invariably leads to the Executive becoming arbitrary since it is placed in the position of accused and judge at the same time.

We also notice with astonishment that 10 members constitute a quorum. This is less than half the total number of Members, and makes it possible for the 10 official members to carry on the work of legislation should circumstances, for any reason whatever, prevent the other members from being present. In which case the power of the Legislative Council becomes a mere shadow and not a reality.

• 
  
  
  • 
    
    (e) By the provisions of Articles 33, 46 and 67, Palestine is considered as a Crown Colony, and the High Commissioner as the Governor of a Colony or British possession with the rights of confirming sentences of death, of deporting any person without trial and without allowing that person the right of appeal against the order for deportation.
    (f) The recognition of Hebrew as an official language of the State as in Article 80 is another proof of the desire to foster Zionist nationalism in Palestine, when only about 10 per cent, of the present Jewish inhabitants of the country speak that language. This innovation is wholly unwarranted and adds to the expenses of the State, which derives its main revenues from the Arab population.
    
    (g) The High Commissioner by Article 81 is given the power to obstruct any appeal to the League of Nations.
    
    (h) Lastly, we read in Article 83 that the High Commissioner may, after obtaining the approval of the Secretary of State, vary, annul or add to the provisions of this Order in Council. These powers of the High Commissioner render this Order in Council as if it had not been.

For these reasons we find that no useful purpose would be served by discussing in detail the draft of "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
The Delegation requests that the constitution for Palestine should—

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)

Excellent post. This blows a hole in Israel's bullshit that the Palestinians have always rejected a state when they have demanded one from day one.

Not at all, we all know that from day one they ceded the land to a King from Mecca, and demanded to be Syrian nationals.

My claim was totally different - they never wanted an independent country separate from the Arabian empire, from the waqf that connected all the Muslim lands into one unit, not to get rid of foreign ashraf dynasties like Hassayinis and Hashemites or other Syrian clans.

There's a big difference, when read in context of former demand, between a rule in a district of Syria and a state independent from foreign intervention. They were fine with the intervention as long as it was Arab and not Jewish.

If Arabs in Palestine wanted an independent state they wouldn't cede the control to another nation.

They were fine with the intervention as long as it was Arab and not Jewish.

Could it be that the Arabs did not kick them out but the Jews did.

How did it work for them under the Hashemites in Jordan?
How did it work for the Jews?

I mean this notion that we should be ruled by an administrator from Mecca and a bunch of royal oligarchs sounds like feudalism, even if disguised under regional democracy the system is still not of independence but of centralized Arab confederation at best.

You can blame Britain for its appointed government in Jordan.

 

[rylah]

From 1922 you ignorant idiot. The Palestinians were demanding independence from the British at the outset of the Mandate.

"PALESTINE.

"CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE
PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
AND THE
ZIONIST ORGANISATION.

Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
JUNE, 1922.
LONDON:

HOTEL CECIL,
London, W.C.,
February 21st, 1922.

Sir,

We wish to express our thanks to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies, for his courtesy in allowing us to see the draft of a proposed Palestine Order in Council embodying a scheme of Government for Palestine, and to discuss the same in our capacity of representatives of the Arab People of Palestine.

• 
  
  
  • 
    
    We would, therefore, submit the following observations:—

Whilst the position in Palestine is, as it stands to-day, with the British Government holding authority by an occupying force, and using that authority to impose upon the people against their wishes a great immigration of alien Jews, many of them of a Bolshevik revolutionary type, no constitution which would fall short of giving the People of Palestine full control of their own affairs could be acceptable.
If the British Government would revise their present policy in Palestine, end the Zionist con-dominium, put a stop to all alien immigration and grant the People of Palestine — who by Right and Experience are the best judges of what is good and bad to their country — Executive and Legislative powers, the terms of a constitution could be discussed in a different atmosphere. If to-day the People of Palestine assented to any constitution which fell short of giving them full control of their own affairs they would be in the position of agreeing to an instrument of Government which might, and probably would, be used to smother their national life under a flood of alien immigration.

We, therefore, hold that the proposed constitution is wholly unsatisfactory, because:—

• 
  
  
  • 
    
    (a) In the preamble to the Palestine Order in Council "the declaration of November 2nd, 1917, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People" is made a basis for this Order; the People of Palestine cannot accept this Declaration as a basis for discussion.
    (b) In Articles 4-9 of the Order dealing with the manner of appointment of the High Commissioner and his powers, Palestine is considered as a colony of the lowest order, whereas according to paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, Palestine comes under Grade A, where "certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognised subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone."
    
    (c) The Executive, dealt with in Articles 10-16, is in no way responsible to the Legislative Council.

• 
  
  
  • 
    (d) Articles 17-28 dealing with the Legislative Council prescribe that this Council "shall consist of 25 members in addition to the High Commissioner"—"who shall exercise a casting vote, in case of an equality of votes." This brings the total number of votes to 27. Of these, 10 shall be official members holding office under the High Commissioner, and two members shall be nominated by him. Thus the High Commissioner commands 14 out of the 27 votes. Of the 12 elected members there will probably be 10 or 11 that would represent the Arab majority, who would be unable to carry any measure against the official preponderance of votes.

It is thus apparent that too much power is given to a High Commissioner whom we will suppose is impartial. But when, as is the case with the present High Commissioner, he is a Zionist, i.e. a member of the organisation which is prompting the flood of alien Jew immigration into Palestine, whose officials as well as those members appointed by him must, naturally, carry out his policy, and when one or two of the 12 elected members will most probably be Zionists, then the Zionist policy of the Government will be carried out under a constitutional guise, whereas at present it is illegal, against the rights and wishes of the people, and maintained by force of arms alone.
Article 22 gives the High Commissioner the power at any time to prorogue or dissolve the Council, without the provision that he must call a new Council within a stated time.

Article 23 gives the High Commissioner the right to veto any measure passed by the Council.

We further submit in this connection that it is not in keeping with the constitutional spirit to place the Head of the Executive at the head of the Legislative and to introduce into this latter, as members, officials of the State. This invariably leads to the Executive becoming arbitrary since it is placed in the position of accused and judge at the same time.

We also notice with astonishment that 10 members constitute a quorum. This is less than half the total number of Members, and makes it possible for the 10 official members to carry on the work of legislation should circumstances, for any reason whatever, prevent the other members from being present. In which case the power of the Legislative Council becomes a mere shadow and not a reality.

• 
  
  
  • 
    
    (e) By the provisions of Articles 33, 46 and 67, Palestine is considered as a Crown Colony, and the High Commissioner as the Governor of a Colony or British possession with the rights of confirming sentences of death, of deporting any person without trial and without allowing that person the right of appeal against the order for deportation.
    (f) The recognition of Hebrew as an official language of the State as in Article 80 is another proof of the desire to foster Zionist nationalism in Palestine, when only about 10 per cent, of the present Jewish inhabitants of the country speak that language. This innovation is wholly unwarranted and adds to the expenses of the State, which derives its main revenues from the Arab population.
    
    (g) The High Commissioner by Article 81 is given the power to obstruct any appeal to the League of Nations.
    
    (h) Lastly, we read in Article 83 that the High Commissioner may, after obtaining the approval of the Secretary of State, vary, annul or add to the provisions of this Order in Council. These powers of the High Commissioner render this Order in Council as if it had not been.

For these reasons we find that no useful purpose would be served by discussing in detail the draft of "The Palestine Order in Council, 1922."
The Delegation requests that the constitution for Palestine should—

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)

Excellent post. This blows a hole in Israel's bullshit that the Palestinians have always rejected a state when they have demanded one from day one.

Not at all, we all know that from day one they ceded the land to a King from Mecca, and demanded to be Syrian nationals.

My claim was totally different - they never wanted an independent country separate from the Arabian empire, from the waqf that connected all the Muslim lands into one unit, not to get rid of foreign ashraf dynasties like Hassayinis and Hashemites or other Syrian clans.

There's a big difference, when read in context of former demand, between a rule in a district of Syria and a state independent from foreign intervention. They were fine with the intervention as long as it was Arab and not Jewish.

If Arabs in Palestine wanted an independent state they wouldn't cede the control to another nation.

They were fine with the intervention as long as it was Arab and not Jewish.

Could it be that the Arabs did not kick them out but the Jews did.

How did it work for them under the Hashemites in Jordan?
How did it work for the Jews?

I mean this notion that we should be ruled by an administrator from Mecca and a bunch of royal oligarchs sounds like feudalism, even if disguised under regional democracy the system is still not of independence but of centralized Arab confederation at best.

You can blame Britain for its appointed government in Jordan.

I don't blame Israel for freeing me from same Hashemite rule, from making it a Greater Syria type of district dependent on Mecca and its' oligarchy.

If not for Israel it would be the same Jordan/Syria here.

 

[Shusha]

Exactly, they are Arab speaking people who identify as Arab.

So, they are an Arab speaking (and Arab culture) people who identify (self-determine) as Arab BUT they are not Arab?

PAHLEEEEESE.

 

[admonit]

Exactly, they are Arab speaking people who identify as Arab.

So, they are an Arab speaking (and Arab culture) people who identify (self-determine) as Arab BUT they are not Arab?

PAHLEEEEESE.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

 

[montelatici]

Exactly, they are Arab speaking people who identify as Arab.

So, they are an Arab speaking (and Arab culture) people who identify (self-determine) as Arab BUT they are not Arab?

PAHLEEEEESE.

They are not Arabian. They are Berbers who self-identify as Arabs, Arabic speaking people. Just as native Bolivians are Spanish-speaking native-Americans who self-identify as Hispanic, but are not Spanish.

Get it now?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Exactly, they are Arab speaking people who identify as Arab.

So, they are an Arab speaking (and Arab culture) people who identify (self-determine) as Arab BUT they are not Arab?

PAHLEEEEESE.

And besides that, what does it matter?

 

[Shusha]

Exactly, they are Arab speaking people who identify as Arab.

So, they are an Arab speaking (and Arab culture) people who identify (self-determine) as Arab BUT they are not Arab?

PAHLEEEEESE.

And besides that, what does it matter?

It doesn't matter the slightest bit to me. I'm the one who believes both people should have self-determination. I think all this talk of DNA and who identifies as whom and who came here from which place, when and why is stupid and rather unsavoury.

The Jewish people have been there for thousands of years. This is obvious historical fact.

The Arab Palestinians have been there for many, many hundreds of years. This is also obvious historical fact.

They both deserve States. Just get ON with it.