Had the Palestinians accepted UN resolution 181 in 1947 as Israel did, they would have already had their own Palestinian State. By voting against it the Palestinains made it non binding & thus sealed their own fate. It's called Palestinian mentality.
UN Resolution 181
- Thread starter MJB12741
- Start date
Unfortunately,it was the surrounding Arab states that made the decision to reject the resolution and attack Israel after they declared statehood. The way I see it, the Palestinians are paying for the **** ups of their Arab neighbors.
Even Abbas said it was a mistake not to accept the resolution:
Abbas: Arabs erred in rejecting 1947 partition plan | JPost | Israel News
Even Abbas said it was a mistake not to accept the resolution:
Abbas: Arabs erred in rejecting 1947 partition plan | JPost | Israel News
- Thread starter
- #3
Actually you are correct. It was the Arab countries who doomed the Palestinians. For which the Palestinians & their supporters blame Israel.
The Arab invasion of Palestine, and the rejection of the UN resolution, were caused by the outrageous events of the time. Jews had forced large scale immigration on an already populated country, caused extreme friction, and evently violence. This reached it's extreme point in 1948, when Jews were killing and expelling Arabs ahead of an anticipated independence declaration. The UN awarded 60% of the country to a then small minority, including some of the most valuable areas. These events tipped the scales and caused the conflict we see continuing today.
It was a predictable reaction at the time. If millions of immigrants, legal or not, forced their way into your corner of the globe, and then declared independence, with those original inhabitants left as second class bystanders, do you think you might be upset?
RoccoR
Gold Member
Auteur, et al,
Again this claim.
HRH Faisal bin Hussein was, at the time, acting on behalf of HM King of Hejaz (Sharif of Mecca under the Ottoman Empire) having dominion over Jerusalem and Palestine; and only later became King of the Arab Kingdom of Greater Syria in 1920, and was King Faisal I of Iraq from 23 August 1921 to 1933. HRH was instrumental is establishing government under British protection.
The Jewish people did not force their way in, they were invited. (Arab's tend to forget this and then twist it around because they didn't get every square inch. This goes hand-in-hand with the percentages they claim, and tend for forget that Jordan is a derivative of the British Mandate.)
Most Respectfully,
R
Again this claim.
(OBSERVATION)
Article IV said:
HRH Faisal bin Hussein was, at the time, acting on behalf of HM King of Hejaz (Sharif of Mecca under the Ottoman Empire) having dominion over Jerusalem and Palestine; and only later became King of the Arab Kingdom of Greater Syria in 1920, and was King Faisal I of Iraq from 23 August 1921 to 1933. HRH was instrumental is establishing government under British protection.
The Jewish people did not force their way in, they were invited. (Arab's tend to forget this and then twist it around because they didn't get every square inch. This goes hand-in-hand with the percentages they claim, and tend for forget that Jordan is a derivative of the British Mandate.)
Most Respectfully,
R
Last edited:
Sweet_Caroline
Gold Member
- Jun 15, 2013
- 4,174
- 824
- 155
Considering the UN had no right to divide the land as proved in my post about the 1922 San Remo Mandate (link below - post number 106), the fact that the Arabs refused it when they could have grabbed that opportunity makes it even more ironic.
,
,
Lipush
Gold Member
why even mentioning 1947-1948? They made a stupid decision, they had to deal with the result.
Sweet_Caroline
Gold Member
- Jun 15, 2013
- 4,174
- 824
- 155
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCTVfob91t4&list=PL0877FD9B8BE484CE&index=5]Palestinian Mistakes - YouTube[/ame]
RoccoR
Gold Member
Lipush, Sweet_Caroline, et al,
Well, this is how we get the conflict over sovereignty.
As our friend "Sweet_Caroline" points out, on the extreme left, you have a group (pro-Israeli) that essentially say that under the San Remo Convention Israel gets everything west of the Jordan River, including the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Jerusalem. On the extreme right, you have a group (pro-Palestinian) that claim the same territory for the Arab (the P F Tinmore like advocates).
I do not agree that the 1920 San Remo Convention makes any of the entitlements that the author claims - based on some Biblical References which the author implies.
I also think that the tenants of the San Remo Convention that survive, actually survive as reiterations in follow-on LoN/UN Mandates and Resolutions; but, that the strength of the San Remo Convention no longer stands.
Most Respectfully,
R
Well, this is how we get the conflict over sovereignty.
(COMMENT)
As our friend "Sweet_Caroline" points out, on the extreme left, you have a group (pro-Israeli) that essentially say that under the San Remo Convention Israel gets everything west of the Jordan River, including the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Jerusalem. On the extreme right, you have a group (pro-Palestinian) that claim the same territory for the Arab (the P F Tinmore like advocates).
I do not agree that the 1920 San Remo Convention makes any of the entitlements that the author claims - based on some Biblical References which the author implies.
I also think that the tenants of the San Remo Convention that survive, actually survive as reiterations in follow-on LoN/UN Mandates and Resolutions; but, that the strength of the San Remo Convention no longer stands.
Most Respectfully,
R
The Chinese have a saying: A drowning man will grasp for straw.
You are reaching back in time to an obscure treaty, reached during the turmoil and machinations of the Versailles carve up of the Middle East, signed on the Arab side by a delegate without authorization, without consultation of the people actually involved, and who soon repudiated the treaty himself. And it didn't even call for the establishment of a Jewish state, just large scale Jewish immigration. The opinion of the UN general assembly carries somewhat more weight than the plotting of a long dead Arab leader.
Auteur, as ridiculous as your comment that the Jews from Europe "forced" their way in Mandatory Palestine is, it's nothing new. Typical Arab/Palestinian anti - Israel Propaganda that makes it seem as if they came out of nowhere and 'invaded' the land. The British encouraged AND facilitated the immigration of the European Jews.
That's not saying that the Palestinian Arabs (they weren't referred to as 'Palestinians' until the late
60's) shouldn't have voiced their opinion, but the land was under BRITISH rule, not Palestinian Arab or Arab rule.
That's not saying that the Palestinian Arabs (they weren't referred to as 'Palestinians' until the late
60's) shouldn't have voiced their opinion, but the land was under BRITISH rule, not Palestinian Arab or Arab rule.
This logic is an endorsement of colonialism, and an extension of the idea that might makes right. Having authority over an area does not mean anything goes, and fix bayonets if there is disagreement, at least in the modern world.
Britain conceived of the idea of Jewish immigration to Palestine during the depth of WW1, to curry favor with the perceived affluent Jewish segment of the population, for one major reason. They supported Jewish immigration, vacillated, changed course, dithered, and then washed their hands of the whole issue. Claiming that massive Jewish immigration into a country that did not want this to take place was legitimate, because Britain (more or less) backed it, is a very weak argument.
Of course, they didn't come out of nowhere. The claim was made that Jews had a legitimate right to Palestine because Jews lived there centuries back, and many have had a long standing nostalgia for the place. If this logic were played out with all ethnic groups, the whole population of the world would be in motion. It is of course, absurd. Given the rough ride many Jews have experienced in the world, the more pragmatic story is that many simply wanted a place of their own, Palestine was chosen, and much flowed from this, including long standing conflict. While one can sympathize with the feeling here, it is simply not OK to grab whatever piece of real estate that comes to mind.
It's not the Zionists fault the Arab states chose to reject the partition plan on behalf of the Palestinian Arabs. The piece of land that was being offered to the Jews in 1947 was half what they were to have received from the original British Mandate. Why should they suffer because the surrounding Arab states didn't want a state for the Jews in the Middle East?
- Thread starter
- #15
Next the Palestinian terrorist supporters will be blaming Israel for the Sykes-Picot agreement.
RoccoR
Gold Member
Auteur, et al,
I'm not sure who is grasping at straws.
R
I'm not sure who is grasping at straws.
(COMMENT)
- an obscure treaty
It is only obscure because the Arab wants to perpetuate the idea that the Jewish People invaded the Mandate. But similar language was in every major document all the way to the passage of GA Resolution 181(II).
- Versailles carve up of the Middle East
At the conclusion of WWI, four major empires fell: The Austria-Hungary (Emperor Francis Joseph), the Ottoman Empire (Saltan Mehmed VI), the Russian Empire (Czar Nicholas II), and the German Empire (Kaiser Wilhelm II). Each were handled according to the dictates of the respective Treaties by the Allied Powers. The Ottoman Empire was not unique or treated any differently than any other enemy Empire.
- Arab side by a delegate without authorization
Sharif of Mecca controlled The Vilayet of the Hejaz, the region of Arabia under the Ottoman Empire; an area of nearly 100,000 square miles. The Vilayet of Hejaz included all the area from the border of the Vilayet of Syria, south of Ma‛an, to the northern border with the Vilayet of Yemen. The Sharif of Mecca was the Ottoman imperial authority in the region until it sided with the Allied Powers and contributed a sizable irregular force of Bedouin. The Sharif was the Senior Allied Arab Leader to the Regional Allied Powers. The Arab Palestinian was on the side of the Ottoman Empire, and Occupied as an enemy population, as were treated like other populations of fallen Empires.
The Hejaz used the Arab Revolt flag black, green, white horizontally with a red triangle in the hoist. In 1921 or thereabouts the white and green were swapped, making it like the modern Palestinian flag, which is directly derived from it.
Roy Stilling, 12 March 1996
After the fall of Hejaz the colors were used by Husain's sons 'Abdulla (emir of the Transjordan) and Faisal (king of Iraq). Later on they became known as the Pan-Arab colors.
Harald Müller, 13 March 1996
Roy Stilling, 12 March 1996
After the fall of Hejaz the colors were used by Husain's sons 'Abdulla (emir of the Transjordan) and Faisal (king of Iraq). Later on they became known as the Pan-Arab colors.
Harald Müller, 13 March 1996
- didn't even call for the establishment of a Jewish state, just large scale Jewish immigration.
It called for the "consummation of their national aspirations." It was not like the "national aspirations" of the Zionist were unknown. In later documentation, it was described as the Jewish National Home.
The preamble of the Mandate contains a statement which is not to be found in the Balfour Declaration:
The preamble of the Mandate contains a statement which is not to be found in the Balfour Declaration:
Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.
Foremost among the exponents of Zionism at that time was Dr. Weizmann. When a Zionist delegation appeared at the Peace Conference in 1919, the American Secretary of State (Mr. Lansing) asked them exactly what was meant by the phrase, a Jewish national home. Dr. Weizmann answered him as follows:-The Zionist organization did not want an autonomous Jewish Government, but merely to establish in Palestine, under a mandatory Power, an administration not necessarily Jewish, which would render it possible to send into Palestine 70 to 80,000 Jews annually. The Zionist Association would require to have permission at the same time to build Jewish schools, where Hebrew would be taught, and in that was to build up gradually a nationality which would be as Jewish as the French nation was French and the British nation British. Later on, when the Jews formed the large majority, they would be ripe to establish such a Government as would answer to the state of the development of the country and to their ideals.
SOURCE: General Assembly A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947
- opinion of the UN general assembly carries somewhat more weight than the plotting of a long dead Arab leader.
- "Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;" (Preamble of San Remo Convention)
- "The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes." (Article 6, San Remo Convention)
- "The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people," (Article 95 Treaty of Sevres)
- "The General Assembly,
- Acting in discharge of its functions under Article 4 of the Charter and rule 125 of its rules of procedure,
[*]1. Decides that Israel is a peace-loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations;
[*]2. Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.
R
Last edited:
The history described in your own link above lists the story of large scale immigration to a country that did not want such. It is one of increasing friction and eventually bloodshed. If Queen Elizabeth 2 decided it would be best for the world, overall, if the US accepted 30 million Mexican migrants, would you say OK, or would you say something along the lines of, I live here, I'm the one to say?
The transfer of Jews to Palestine was not exactly an invasion, but it was an aggressive intrusion, one that evently caused conflict. It is hard to imagine any nation that would absorb such a large number of unasked for migrants, most certainly ones with designs on eventual exclusive control of the country.
I beg to differ over Versailles. The Arab states of the Middle East were seen as ripe for colonial takeover, and Britain and France divided up the pot between them. Colonial takeover was not an issue with the other collapsing empires.
Your Sharif of Mecca was a nobody within the sceme of things in 1919, and at any rate did not represent the Palestinian people, and certainly not the Arab world in general. And even he soon after had second thoughts, and repudiated the treaty.
Outside of the Zionist movement, nothing like the modern state of Israel was envisaged at that time. The idea that a homeland for Jews could be established could have meant a variety of things, including a community under British, French, or even Arab sovereignty. And these declarations of course do not take into consideration the momentous events which were to follow. They have little value, outside of historical interest.
Large scale immigration to a country? Can you please tell us what country you are referring to ?
Your replies have been fairly astute so far toastman, so I am hoping here that you are not going to tell me that Jews came to a place that wasn't really a country, and didn't really have inhabitants, in a meaningful sense of the word.
We can play a game of semantics here about the name of the place, its political status, and what the Ottomans, British, French, Zionists, or the Sharif of Mecca had decided to impose on its residents, but the fact is that the place did have long standing residents, who considered it home, and felt that, beyond a reasonable amount, immigration was not a good idea, as the place was full, or a full as they thought it should be.
Many Jews at the time considered they needed their own country, and as few where up for sale, Palestine was decided upon as a good bet. The problem was that they were too late. In the post war period, colonialism was fast going out of style, as Britain and France were already discovering. Israel was too late in the game.
And this is the root of the issue. The large scale movement of peoples must be one that is negociated and accepted, otherwise it can rapidly start to look like an invasion.
- Thread starter
- #20
Peace will come only when & if Israel ends the occupation by finding an incentive to offer the surrounding Arab countries to grant their Palestinians a right of return back to their indigenous homelands. Call it a One State solution. LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!
Similar threads
- Locked
New Topics
-
-
-
-
Chaim Henry Tejman M. D. on Theoretical Physics?- Started by DennisPTate
- Replies: 0
-
