RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
⁜→ Rigby5, et al,
Remember: "The Mandate for Palestine was assigned to the United Kingdom by the Supreme Council of the Allied Powers at San Remo" (1920). It was imposed on themselves
(the community of the Allied Powers) and not some extraordinary Arab or Jewish influence.
SO
! One thing in these discussions, no matter how deep in the grass we get, the principal objective in 1922 was that:
~→ the Allied Powers agreed → as a body unto themselves → to entrust to British (selected by the said Powers) the administration of the territory of Palestine, (within such boundaries as may be fixed by them, yet not yet fully established). And the Allied Powers that agreed that the responsibility for putting into effect the Balfour Declaration (1917) that was adopted by the said Allied Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish National Home (JNH).
And the Mandate (1922) was a creation of the Allied Powers and could be modified by the Allied Powers at their discretion. The Mandate was not a suicide pact that in total disregard for the events of time, must be strictly adhered to
(as some sort of politically compliance-oriented directive), or to be a record of intent subject to the interpretation by the Arab Palestinians. The Mandate was, in effect, guidance to be interpreted by the British Government and for the British Government with the advice and consent of the Allied Powers and Council of the League of Nations.
Totally wrong.
The British Mandate for Palestine was for Jews to have a homeland inside of an Arab Moslem Palestine, but play no role in government at all.
Read the Churchill Whitepaper of 1922, that explains the confusion in great detail.
The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922
(COMMENT)
The "British Policy in Palestine," as expressed by Sir Winston Churchill
(as Secretary of State for the Colonies) in June 1922 (AKA: The British White Paper of 1922) was an attempt at clarification and yet, kneejerk response to the
Arab Jaffa Riots (1921). The British Policy on Palestine was subject to the interpretation of the day.
EXCERPT • British Policy in a White Paper • 1922 said:
When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home (JNH) 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 center in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride.
Many British Policy Statements and emphasis was changed or modified over time (1922-1948), but this aspect was never altered.
The tension which has prevailed from time to time in Palestine is mainly due to apprehensions, which are entertained both by sections of the Arab and by sections of the Jewish population. These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the
[Balfour] Declaration favoring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November 1917.
(COMMENT)
No matter the reasoning, in the end, "exaggerated interpretations applied to the meaning of the
Balfour Declaration" were unhelpful. But again, what the Allied Powers did or allowed was an authority issued unto themselves. (A "do what you will" policy.)
Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English."
(COMMENT)
This is a quote from the "Political History of Palestine under British Administration" (1947), often given too much emphasis when applied to the context of today's politics → some 70 years later.
... In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the up building of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."
(COMMENT)
This is one of those Eureka Moments; an epiphany of sorts: "Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect."
One can only ask, how did international politics turn this upside-down. But while that Arab Palestinians only ranks 119 out of 189 ---- Israel Ranks 22. So, the goal
(assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development) was not an entire bust... SO, while the policy followed by the Arab Palestinians for 70 years
(solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition) did not work out well for them, the Israeli policies have taken the Jewish Community to the very top of the Region in terms of the goal: national and human development.
It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.
(COMMENT)
You have the advantage on me. I have absolutely no insight into what the Palestine Zionist Executive wants, needs or strives to achieve.
Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine is concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the
Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded and that that Declaration, reaffirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.
(COMMENT)
Whatever you want the meaning of the actions to mean in 1917 or 1922, the actual interpretation, the implementation, the applications of changes, etc have brought us forward to today. There is no "instant replay" and you cannot simply throw a flag on the play and penalize the parties to a setback of 70 years.
This should be obvious without even being told, because there obviously is no legal way the British could have given Palestine to the immigrant European Jews even if they wanted to. The vast majority has always been native Arab Muslims. The UN totally screwed up by giving 55% of Palestine to the 30% Jewish immigrant population.
It was illegal and immoral to start with, and made even worse by Jews not allowing the refugees who fled the violence, to return to their own homes in 1949.
(COMMENT)
Again, you are making a determination on the "legality" of the actions of the "Allied Powers" in 1922 right through to the 1948 withdrawal of the British and the announcement of independence through sheer "self-determination" and against all odds. You cannot mix your modified historical facts on which the Allied Powers made certain decisions → of the Actions of the United Nations, and the role that "self-determination" played in the developments we contend with today.
........View attachment 276907
Most Respectfully,
R
