What would 'Palestine' be like today if the Jews never came back?

[Beelzebub]

That was not anger Phoney. That was me being gently corrective of you.

That was not an attack. That was me patting you on the head, and saying "run along little boy".
I cannot debate with someone such as yourself who makes up history and doesn't understand in the least what is written to or about him.

What age are you Phoney? Very young? Or just not interested in learning?

 

[Youch]

I would like an honest answer about this from Team Palestine about this.

I ask in light of this thread:

Arab Envy Of Israel Contributes To Their Dysfunction | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

this thread:

The Muslim claim to Jerusalem | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And the article in above thread (which penelope provided from another thread here):

The Muslim Claim to Jerusalem :: Daniel Pipes

I could go on, but I really want to hear from Team Palestine about this question.

In light of how the rest of the Middle East is going and the history of how Islam cared about Israel ('Palestine') before the Jews decided to return; tell me honestly what 'Palestine' would be like today.

"Palestine" does not exist. It never has. If you are talking about the few nomads that once existed, or the masses of refugees that other countries have expelled, Jordan being the foremost, then they care not at all for the "Palestinians" except for the fact that they serve the caliphate, in particular the jihad against infidels. Israel, while the only free and democratically elected government in the region, the only hope therein for the end of mass oppression in the larger region, is the focule point of every cell of hatred for a thousand miles around. Why? Not because they legally possess ancestral and religious ground, but because they are not muslim.

IT IS ABOUT RELIGIOUS HATRED, and NOTHING ELSE. Everything else is a side note, a distraction, a doodle in the margin. Islamic Leaders have repeatedly expresses the desire to wipe Israel off the map. And you people brush that off as if it is a cartoon??

"You can go on"...what a bunch of horse shit.. Anyone can cite a dozen of links that support either side. Such is the world of the internet and twitter, etc....

 

[Phoenall]

There would have been no British occupation, or any LoN if there had not been a Jewish return to Israel...

Please do us both a favour and read up on the subject before posting this sort of nonsense. When the Turks declared for the Central Powers this was a direct threat to the British controlled Persian oil fields which supplied the Royal Navy and the Suez Canal which was a vital communications link to British India. Jewish "return" or no Jewish "return" there would have been a British occupation. See the Armistice of Mudros October 1918.

No Jewish return and there would be no need for the LoN to take Palestine. They could have taken the oil fields only as reparations and left the rest of the M.E. in ottoman hands. They very soon lost those oil fields didn't they and went back to coal fired boilers

 

[Phoenall]

DO explain how it could be illegal when the owners of Palestine had extended the right to migrate to Palestine to all the worlds Jews. The British authorities overstepped the mark in denying the Jews the right to disembark and live in Palestine, while at the same time turning a blind eye to illegal arab muslim migration into Palestine.

Or do you have some secret documents that show the LoN scapped the right of the Jews to migrate to Palestine and told no one about it. That the UN had passed a resolution banning the Jews from migrating to Palestine and taking up the offer of a resurrected JEWISH NATIONAL HOME.

Can't be explained because it never happened. Britain facilitated Jewish immigration into Palestine until they realised they'd made a huge mistake. The 1939 White Paper was an attempt to rectify this mistake. Immigration was restricted, which made all those evading immigration through official channels illegal immigrants which the British were well within their rights to prevent entry to and to deport when found within Palestine. There was never any document or treaty giving Jewish people a specific right to enter Palestine. In 1945 President Truman prevented those European Jewish refugees who wanted to (the overwhelmning majority), from migrating to America. This left them nowhere else to go but Palestine.

The British did not have the authority to call a halt to Jewish migration to Palestine, so the LoN/UN overruled them when they found out about their antics. This was the deciding factor in Britain getting rid of the mandate a few years later. Here is the mandate terms that were set in stone

What would Palestine be like today if the Jews never came back Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


“In Palestine as of Right and Not on Sufferance ...”
“When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride. But in order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on sufferance.”

Winston Churchill
British Secretary of State for the Colonies
June 1922

Ever ask yourself why during the 30 year period - between 1917 to 1947 - thousands of Jews throughout the world woke up one morning and decided to leave their homes and go to Palestine? The majority did this because they heard that a future national home for the Jewish people was being established in Palestine, on the basis of the League of Nations obligation under the “Mandate for Palestine” document. The “Mandate for Palestine,” an historical League of Nations document, laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered in international law. The “Mandate for Palestine” was not a naive vision briefly embraced by the international community. Fifty-one member countries – the entire League of Nations – unanimously declared on July 24, 1922:

This as well destroys your whole argument

Any attempt to negate the Jewish people’s right to Palestine - Eretz-Israel, and to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations is a serious infringement of international law.



So you see there was a document/treaty that gave the Jews the right to migrate to Palestine and settle. So they were not illegal Immigrants but invited migrants, much as the last Labour government invited thousands of muslims to migrate to the UK to swell the numbers of Labour voters.

 

[Phoenall]

[QUOTE="Phoenall, post: 9673740]
Your constant agreement with Palestinian BLOOD LIBELS for one,

Agreed with what "BLOOD LIBELS"?

Def: Blood libel (also blood accusation) is an accusation that Jews kidnapped and murdered the children of Christians to use their blood as part of their religious rituals during Jewish holidays.

your constant placing of the blame on Israel for the deaths of Palestinians while ignoring the facts surrounding the start of the problems.

Constant? I can't be held responsible for your inability to read. Blame your teachers.

The calling of Jews in an abusive derogatory manner for atrocities they have never committed.

Are you delusional? What are you talking about? A few links might help make your case here.

The denial of any evidence that shows the Israelis were within the law in their treatment of terrorists and child murderers.

I don't know - that's really broad buddy - in fact, it borders on a psychotic rant.. I mean, take for example the way Palestinian children are treated in the justice system compared to Jewish children. Hard to see how that dual system of treating children for the same crime can be justified...but I'm sure you'll find a way.

Where is your admittance of being wrong over the murder of 3 Israeli boys, were is your admittance of being wrong over the disclosure of hamas using human shields. Where is your admittance of being wrong in being shown hamas is the one in breach of the cease fires every time, where is your admittance that hamas is a terrorist organisation. See the list is endless of your one sided anti semitic Jew hatred.

What the hell are you talking about? You really are a nutter. How about you provide a few quotes to support your claims.[/QUOTE]




Try reading your own posts in regards to the Jews and Israel, show were the Israeli's have targeted civilians as you have claimed. Or that they have ethnically cleansed Palestine of arab muslims.

 

[Phoenall]

There would have been no British occupation, or any LoN if there had not been a Jewish return to Israel. So the land would have still been Turkish Ottoman and the arab muslims would be slaves. The few Jews and Christians in Palestine would be the owners of the land and employing the dysfunctional arab muslims as menials. The blood would have flown down the gutters as the surrounding arab nationalists tried to gain control and the Ottomans would have been ruthless in their methods of control. There would have been no Pakistan as the British would not need to send troops to Palestine, no Iraq as it would have been just another part of the Ottoman empire. No Syria, no Jordan, no Egypt, no Iran. So no M.E. problems would have arisen other than inter muslim ones, so this board would not be here and team Palestine would not exist, nor would their claims of the holocaust being used to mooch money from the US. Very doubtful is the U.N. would even exist as there would have been no need for one. Be more in depth in your views and go back to the origins of the Jewish migration to Palestine and you will see that the Ottomans instigated the whole mess.

I just want to preserve this, in case you delete it, after someone tells you how idiotic you are.

So I can return and read it anytime I need a chuckle.

Ya...it's bizarre. The Ottomans would still have fallen, the Brits would still have control over the area....all that is independent of large scale Jewish immigration or Zionism.

No Jewish migration to palestine would mean that the LoN would not need to apply a mandate to Palestine giving the Jews the land for their NATIONAL HOME. This would have lead to the arab muslims exercising arab nationalism and going to war with the Ottomans for control of the land between the wars leaving the M.E. in turmoil and civil war. You cant ignore the facts that don't match your POV and hope they will go away, the LoN only enabled the mandate of Palestine because the Zionist movement was going to migrate as many European Jews as wanted to go to Palestine in the later part of the 19c. They saw it as a way to get rid of the Jews in the allied nations and take the problem out of their hands. So without the migration there was no need for the mandate to create war ongoing in Palestine today. And the arab muslims would have had to fight amongst themselves

 

[Phoenall]

There would have been no British occupation, or any LoN if there had not been a Jewish return to Israel. So the land would have still been Turkish Ottoman and the arab muslims would be slaves. The few Jews and Christians in Palestine would be the owners of the land and employing the dysfunctional arab muslims as menials. The blood would have flown down the gutters as the surrounding arab nationalists tried to gain control and the Ottomans would have been ruthless in their methods of control. There would have been no Pakistan as the British would not need to send troops to Palestine, no Iraq as it would have been just another part of the Ottoman empire. No Syria, no Jordan, no Egypt, no Iran. So no M.E. problems would have arisen other than inter muslim ones, so this board would not be here and team Palestine would not exist, nor would their claims of the holocaust being used to mooch money from the US. Very doubtful is the U.N. would even exist as there would have been no need for one. Be more in depth in your views and go back to the origins of the Jewish migration to Palestine and you will see that the Ottomans instigated the whole mess.

I must ask where you get this theory. I do not see any connection with the creation of the LoN (Woodrow Wilson's pet project) and the Jewish return to Israel. And the British, I thought, were already at war with the Ottoman Empire, so at the end of the war there still would have been no Ottomans. The 'Mandates' were both for the French and the British after they won the war.

The LoN was created at the end of WW1 by 24 nations, and did not include the USA

Member states of the League of Nations - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The primary purpose was to fulfil the promises made by the allies during WW1 to the arab muslims and the Zionist council, so the mandates were formed to administer the lands until such time as the indigenous inhabitants could create their own nations. Without the Jewish migration to Palestine under the Ottomans there would be no need for the Palestinian mandate in the form it took. So there would have been no Israel to create, just tinpot Islamic nations at each other throats for control of the best land. The Jews of Europe would have been massacred by the communists and Nazis, and then faced anti Semitism in the rest of Europe.

 

[Phoenall]

Actually, to get back on topic - this topic kind of reminds me of a type of science fiction exploring alternate histories if certain things hadn't occurred or decisions made differently.

If there had been no massive Jewish immigration to populate and support the formation of Israel - what would have happened when the Mandate left? Would they have left? Would Arab nationalism have been the same?

Now this is what I was looking for. Something thought provoking. Not name calling (me bad too).

I think the Mandate would have left by one means or another. However Arab nationalism all over the M.E. would possibly be a much different thing than what we see today since some of the most extreme parts of Islam we see today seem to blame or use the "Palestinian struggle" as their call to arms.

I am still of the opinion that the region would be much more of a back water and not nearly as developed as it is today.

I agree - the Mandate would have to have ended. Colonial rule all over the world was in it's twilight. I do agree that the Palestinian/Israel issue - or more precisely it's lack of resolution, fueled much of the conflicts in the region.

As to whether it would have remained a backwater, it's really hard to say. I heard that many of those areas - such as Gaza and Haifa were beautiful and prosperous regions before the conflict. There is no doubt that within Israel, the Jews have made a successful and prosperous nation that is culterally rich. Would it still be a backwater if it hadn't happened? Maybe...does it really matter if it's a "back water" or not as long as the people living there cherish what they have?

But there would have been no Palestinian/Israeli problem if the Jews had not migrated to Palestine, it would have just been sunni/shia problems or IS/arab princes problems. The places like gaza and Haifa were prosperous only because the Jews worked hard to make them so. The arab muslims just sat back and took the money in "taxes"

 

[Phoenall]

Nice. But to continue in the 'theme' of this thread, I wonder if the region would also be peaceful enough to enjoy the visits of thousands of western tourists to see the ancient sites, Jerusalem, in nice hotels, etc., had it just been left to the Arabs?

As much as I would like to see the Pyramids, I will not go there. As much as I would like to see what is left of the Hanging gardens of Babylon, I will not set foot in that country either. Beirut I have heard is a wonderful city, as is Damascus; but I will not set foot in those countries. Constantinople (now known as Istanbul) is a very historic city; I would not go there for a visit. One of my flights gave a layover there; but that is all I think I would do. And honestly, I will not even visit Bethlehem nor Jericho.

Why? Because I would not at all feel safe as a 'westerner' citizen of the United States since there are factions in all those countries who want me dead.

Egypt was peaceful and had a huge tourist industry for years, it has only been in recent years that it has been an issue. Why would it be less peaceful if there had been no Israel? One thing is likely- you would not have had the constant canker of the IP conflict to feed terrorism.

But you would have had the constant canker of arab nationalism, arab extremism and sunni/shia fighting. The uprising in Egypt had nothing to do with Israel and all to do with arab extremism and nationalism, much as the civil war in Syria and Iraq caused by insurgents from other Islamic nations. Same with Libya and Somalia it is extremist islam that wants to regress to the 7c that is the cause of the mass murders and fighting, not the existence of Israel. Go to any western nation that has a 10% plus muslim population and you will see the same thing happening there

 

[Beelzebub]

There would have been no British occupation, or any LoN if there had not been a Jewish return to Israel. So the land would have still been Turkish Ottoman and the arab muslims would be slaves. The few Jews and Christians in Palestine would be the owners of the land and employing the dysfunctional arab muslims as menials. The blood would have flown down the gutters as the surrounding arab nationalists tried to gain control and the Ottomans would have been ruthless in their methods of control. There would have been no Pakistan as the British would not need to send troops to Palestine, no Iraq as it would have been just another part of the Ottoman empire. No Syria, no Jordan, no Egypt, no Iran. So no M.E. problems would have arisen other than inter muslim ones, so this board would not be here and team Palestine would not exist, nor would their claims of the holocaust being used to mooch money from the US. Very doubtful is the U.N. would even exist as there would have been no need for one. Be more in depth in your views and go back to the origins of the Jewish migration to Palestine and you will see that the Ottomans instigated the whole mess.

I must ask where you get this theory. I do not see any connection with the creation of the LoN (Woodrow Wilson's pet project) and the Jewish return to Israel. And the British, I thought, were already at war with the Ottoman Empire, so at the end of the war there still would have been no Ottomans. The 'Mandates' were both for the French and the British after they won the war.

The LoN was created at the end of WW1 by 24 nations, and did not include the USA

Member states of the League of Nations - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The primary purpose was to fulfil the promises made by the allies during WW1 to the arab muslims and the Zionist council, so the mandates were formed to administer the lands until such time as the indigenous inhabitants could create their own nations. Without the Jewish migration to Palestine under the Ottomans there would be no need for the Palestinian mandate in the form it took. So there would have been no Israel to create, just tinpot Islamic nations at each other throats for control of the best land. The Jews of Europe would have been massacred by the communists and Nazis, and then faced anti Semitism in the rest of Europe.

Would one of you Zionistically inclined type take this boy aside and explain to him:

a) What education is
b) Where he can go to get one
c) Highlights - just the highlights, as comprehensive coverage would be nigh on impossible - of where his illusions are in his 'understanding' of history.

Thank you.
You know it makes sense.

 

[Phoenall]

Why? Because I would not at all feel safe as a 'westerner' citizen of the United States since there are factions in all those countries who want me dead.

They want Americans dead because Americans, directly or by shipping arms to Israel, has killed a lot of Muslims.
Blame your government.

So does that mean we can murder muslims at will because they want us dead. Is it not the same thing and when will it end. Again you blame Israel when the real problem is with islam and its extremists and fundamentalist's following the commands of islam to dominate the world

 

[Phoenall]

That was not anger Phoney. That was me being gently corrective of you.

That was not an attack. That was me patting you on the head, and saying "run along little boy".
I cannot debate with someone such as yourself who makes up history and doesn't understand in the least what is written to or about him.

What age are you Phoney? Very young? Or just not interested in learning?

Lets just say I was around from just after the independence of Israel and have been educated to a high standard. I see your personal attacks because you dont have any come back other than this to my arguments backed up with evidence. You have a problem with my posts then attack them and the arguments, not me personally as this shows an inability on your part to engage in adult intelligent debate.

 

[Phoenall]

There would have been no British occupation, or any LoN if there had not been a Jewish return to Israel. So the land would have still been Turkish Ottoman and the arab muslims would be slaves. The few Jews and Christians in Palestine would be the owners of the land and employing the dysfunctional arab muslims as menials. The blood would have flown down the gutters as the surrounding arab nationalists tried to gain control and the Ottomans would have been ruthless in their methods of control. There would have been no Pakistan as the British would not need to send troops to Palestine, no Iraq as it would have been just another part of the Ottoman empire. No Syria, no Jordan, no Egypt, no Iran. So no M.E. problems would have arisen other than inter muslim ones, so this board would not be here and team Palestine would not exist, nor would their claims of the holocaust being used to mooch money from the US. Very doubtful is the U.N. would even exist as there would have been no need for one. Be more in depth in your views and go back to the origins of the Jewish migration to Palestine and you will see that the Ottomans instigated the whole mess.

I must ask where you get this theory. I do not see any connection with the creation of the LoN (Woodrow Wilson's pet project) and the Jewish return to Israel. And the British, I thought, were already at war with the Ottoman Empire, so at the end of the war there still would have been no Ottomans. The 'Mandates' were both for the French and the British after they won the war.

The LoN was created at the end of WW1 by 24 nations, and did not include the USA

Member states of the League of Nations - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The primary purpose was to fulfil the promises made by the allies during WW1 to the arab muslims and the Zionist council, so the mandates were formed to administer the lands until such time as the indigenous inhabitants could create their own nations. Without the Jewish migration to Palestine under the Ottomans there would be no need for the Palestinian mandate in the form it took. So there would have been no Israel to create, just tinpot Islamic nations at each other throats for control of the best land. The Jews of Europe would have been massacred by the communists and Nazis, and then faced anti Semitism in the rest of Europe.

Would one of you Zionistically inclined type take this boy aside and explain to him:

a) What education is
b) Where he can go to get one
c) Highlights - just the highlights, as comprehensive coverage would be nigh on impossible - of where his illusions are in his 'understanding' of history.

Thank you.
You know it makes sense.

How about you show that my evidence is false then, or is that beyond your meagre intelligence. Constantly making personal attacks shows that you have no reply to the arguments raised and are trying to save face.

 

[Beelzebub]

Yes dear.

 

[docmauser1]

a) What education is b) Where he can go to get one c) Highlights - just the highlights, as comprehensive coverage would be nigh on impossible - of where his illusions are in his 'understanding' of history. Thank you. You know it makes sense.

[yawn] Drivel.

 

[Crystalclear]

It would probably be some nice caliphate, like Syria or Iraq.

 

[Coyote]

Nice. But to continue in the 'theme' of this thread, I wonder if the region would also be peaceful enough to enjoy the visits of thousands of western tourists to see the ancient sites, Jerusalem, in nice hotels, etc., had it just been left to the Arabs?

As much as I would like to see the Pyramids, I will not go there. As much as I would like to see what is left of the Hanging gardens of Babylon, I will not set foot in that country either. Beirut I have heard is a wonderful city, as is Damascus; but I will not set foot in those countries. Constantinople (now known as Istanbul) is a very historic city; I would not go there for a visit. One of my flights gave a layover there; but that is all I think I would do. And honestly, I will not even visit Bethlehem nor Jericho.

Why? Because I would not at all feel safe as a 'westerner' citizen of the United States since there are factions in all those countries who want me dead.

Egypt was peaceful and had a huge tourist industry for years, it has only been in recent years that it has been an issue. Why would it be less peaceful if there had been no Israel? One thing is likely- you would not have had the constant canker of the IP conflict to feed terrorism.

But you would have had the constant canker of arab nationalism, arab extremism and sunni/shia fighting. The uprising in Egypt had nothing to do with Israel and all to do with arab extremism and nationalism, much as the civil war in Syria and Iraq caused by insurgents from other Islamic nations. Same with Libya and Somalia it is extremist islam that wants to regress to the 7c that is the cause of the mass murders and fighting, not the existence of Israel. Go to any western nation that has a 10% plus muslim population and you will see the same thing happening there

The question is though - would you, or would it be to the same degree? And, what caused it? I agree - the uprising in Egypt has little if anything to do with Israel and probably Egypt, Syria, and Libya have a lot more to do with the US invasion of Iraq as well as the way the Brits and the French divided up the regions and forced people into artificial borders during the Mandate period. The Sunni/Shia rift is largely a product of the Middle East - you don't see it in all Islamic countries.

As far as western countries with a 10% or more Muslim populaiton - no you are not seeing the same thing happening on the basis of population - it depends on the country, and there is often a host of other factors such as ethnic divisions and historical grievances making it easy for extremists to gain entry. Even in Iraq - would ISIS have been able to make such gains if Al Maliki hadn't been so corrupt that he oppressed the Suni's?

 

[Coyote]

[QUOTE="Phoenall, post: 9673740]
Your constant agreement with Palestinian BLOOD LIBELS for one,

Agreed with what "BLOOD LIBELS"?

Def: Blood libel (also blood accusation) is an accusation that Jews kidnapped and murdered the children of Christians to use their blood as part of their religious rituals during Jewish holidays.

your constant placing of the blame on Israel for the deaths of Palestinians while ignoring the facts surrounding the start of the problems.

Constant? I can't be held responsible for your inability to read. Blame your teachers.

The calling of Jews in an abusive derogatory manner for atrocities they have never committed.

Are you delusional? What are you talking about? A few links might help make your case here.

The denial of any evidence that shows the Israelis were within the law in their treatment of terrorists and child murderers.

I don't know - that's really broad buddy - in fact, it borders on a psychotic rant.. I mean, take for example the way Palestinian children are treated in the justice system compared to Jewish children. Hard to see how that dual system of treating children for the same crime can be justified...but I'm sure you'll find a way.

Where is your admittance of being wrong over the murder of 3 Israeli boys, were is your admittance of being wrong over the disclosure of hamas using human shields. Where is your admittance of being wrong in being shown hamas is the one in breach of the cease fires every time, where is your admittance that hamas is a terrorist organisation. See the list is endless of your one sided anti semitic Jew hatred.

What the hell are you talking about? You really are a nutter. How about you provide a few quotes to support your claims.

Try reading your own posts in regards to the Jews and Israel, show were the Israeli's have targeted civilians as you have claimed. Or that they have ethnically cleansed Palestine of arab muslims.[/QUOTE]

Provide some links please where I've discussed blood libel, call Jews in "abusive derogatory terms", where I've even discussed Hamas' breach of the cease fires? Where have I "been wrong" about the use of human shields?

Seriously Phoenall - put up the proof or admit you are delusional.

 

[RoccoR]

et al,

Since we are dealing in fantasy, I'll put my two-cents in!

• What would 'Palestine' be like today if the Jews never came back?
  • Modern day Syria and Iraq, complete with rubble and trash in the streets; one side killing off the other side.
    • Hmmm, is that not what we have now?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Challenger]

DO explain how it could be illegal when the owners of Palestine had extended the right to migrate to Palestine to all the worlds Jews. The British authorities overstepped the mark in denying the Jews the right to disembark and live in Palestine, while at the same time turning a blind eye to illegal arab muslim migration into Palestine.

Or do you have some secret documents that show the LoN scapped the right of the Jews to migrate to Palestine and told no one about it. That the UN had passed a resolution banning the Jews from migrating to Palestine and taking up the offer of a resurrected JEWISH NATIONAL HOME.

Can't be explained because it never happened. Britain facilitated Jewish immigration into Palestine until they realised they'd made a huge mistake. The 1939 White Paper was an attempt to rectify this mistake. Immigration was restricted, which made all those evading immigration through official channels illegal immigrants which the British were well within their rights to prevent entry to and to deport when found within Palestine. There was never any document or treaty giving Jewish people a specific right to enter Palestine. In 1945 President Truman prevented those European Jewish refugees who wanted to (the overwhelmning majority), from migrating to America. This left them nowhere else to go but Palestine.

The British did not have the authority to call a halt to Jewish migration to Palestine, so the LoN/UN overruled them when they found out about their antics. This was the deciding factor in Britain getting rid of the mandate a few years later. Here is the mandate terms that were set in stone

What would Palestine be like today if the Jews never came back Page 6 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


“In Palestine as of Right and Not on Sufferance ...”
“When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride. But in order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on sufferance.”

Winston Churchill
British Secretary of State for the Colonies
June 1922

Ever ask yourself why during the 30 year period - between 1917 to 1947 - thousands of Jews throughout the world woke up one morning and decided to leave their homes and go to Palestine? The majority did this because they heard that a future national home for the Jewish people was being established in Palestine, on the basis of the League of Nations obligation under the “Mandate for Palestine” document. The “Mandate for Palestine,” an historical League of Nations document, laid down the Jewish legal right to settle anywhere in western Palestine, between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered in international law. The “Mandate for Palestine” was not a naive vision briefly embraced by the international community. Fifty-one member countries – the entire League of Nations – unanimously declared on July 24, 1922:

This as well destroys your whole argument

Any attempt to negate the Jewish people’s right to Palestine - Eretz-Israel, and to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations is a serious infringement of international law.



So you see there was a document/treaty that gave the Jews the right to migrate to Palestine and settle. So they were not illegal Immigrants but invited migrants, much as the last Labour government invited thousands of muslims to migrate to the UK to swell the numbers of Labour voters.

Well yes and no. Churchill's views in 1922 published in the White Paper of that year were a clarification of the British position as regards facilitating Jewish immigration and even that was limited by the capacity of the country to accept immigrants. Jews were not granted any specific rights over and above any other nationality or group however, anyone had the "right" to immigrate to Palestine and become a Palestinian citizen. The British government's view had changed radically by the publication of the, 1930 and 1939 White papers, both of which which superceded the 1922 White Paper and both were as much legally binding on Palestine. It is true that four members of the Permanent Mandates Commission felt that the policy was "...not in harmony with the terms of the Mandate", while the other considered that "...existing circumstances would justify the policy provided the Council of the League of Nations did not oppose it." All seven members however, abstained from making a determination for or against the White Paper so the British Government planned to put the matter before the Council of the League of Nations in September 1939. Needless to say the Council never got a chance to discuss the matter so the 1939 White Paper remained a valid legal instrument.

That being said, my previous statement still stands, "Immigration was restricted, which made all those evading immigration through official channels illegal immigrants which the British were well within their rights to prevent entry to and to deport when found within Palestine." No International law was ever infringed.

What I do find curious however is that under the whole history of Muslim rule of Palestine there was no restriction on Jewish immigration for about 1,400 years, yet there was no significant immigration there until the late 19th-early 20th centuries. This was hardly a general Jewish "longing for return" as they could have done so any time they wanted to. The truth is, before the rise of Zionism in the Jewish community in Europe and elsewhere wasn't even remotely interested in Palestine or having a "national home" there.