Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[Hollie]

The land was ceded to the new states.

What new states?

Link?

The "Class A" Mandates: Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.

So, it's obvious you never actually read the Treaty of Lausanne.

Were you aware that the Class A mandate of Palestine was assigned to Great Britain? What do you think that means?

Sure, the Mandate was assigned to Palestine.

What do you think that means?

You do realize that all of this has been explained to you in a separate thread dedicated to explaining this to you, right?

 

[Hollie]

Who are the Pal'istanians?

A footnote.

Palestine, now a footnote

The Israel-UAE friendship shows how the substantive political issues of the Palestinian people have withered away

www.thehindu.com

!

 

[Hollie]

This is serious. "High treason'' against Allah is no fooling around.




Hamas MP Mushir Al-Masri: UAE-Israel Deal Is Like An Adulteress Marrying An Adulterer; the UAE Has Committed 'High Treason' Against Allah

 

[P F Tinmore]

The land was ceded to the new states.

What new states?

Link?

The "Class A" Mandates: Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.

So, it's obvious you never actually read the Treaty of Lausanne.

Were you aware that the Class A mandate of Palestine was assigned to Great Britain? What do you think that means?

Sure, the Mandate was assigned to Palestine.

What do you think that means?

You do realize that all of this has been explained to you in a separate thread dedicated to explaining this to you, right?

Why? Is it too complicated for you?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Growing Arab Support For Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,

BLUF: Your argument is predicated on the assumption that the Treaty of Lausanne (1923) awarded the territory to the habitual residence. That would be completely wrong (Article 16, Treaty of Lausanne).

Your argument is predicated on the assumption that the Treaty of Lausanne (1923) awarded the territory to the habitual residence.

It wasn't?

Link?

(COMMENT)

The habitual residence was not a party to the conflict. Article 30 (Nationality), it not in the Territorial Section of the Treaty and had nothing whatsoever to do with territorial assignment. (None - Nada!). It was a precaution to prevent burdening other territories with refugees without citizenship. It was actually to protect the interests of the parties to the treaty.

You know all this because we've discussed this before.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Growing Arab Support For Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,

BLUF: Article 95 of that Treaty (of Lausanne 1923) drew an essential distinction between the status of Mesopotamia and Syria and the status of Palestine. The first two countries were provisionally recognised as independent States, whereas, in regard to Palestine, no mention was made of independence nor was there any reference to the assistance and advice of a Mandatory.

The land was ceded to the new states.

What new states?

The "Class A" Mandates: Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Point #1:

◈ Lebanon was a partition out of Syria.​

​

◈ Trans-Jordan was a partition out of Palestine.​

Note: While we say "A" Mandates (Syria and Lebanon, Palestine and Transjordan, and Iraq), there are only three Mandates of a Type "A" nature. The territories are "provisionally" recognized as independent but subject to the civil administration by the Mandatory which continues to provide the advice and assistance until such time as it is able to stand alone.

Point #2:

◈ Lebanon became independent on 22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)​

◈ Syria became independent on 17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration).​

◈ Jordan became independent on 25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)​

◈ Israel became independent on 15 May 1948 (following League of Nations mandate under British administration)​

Point #3: The Arab Palestinians declined to participate in establishing a self-governing nation under the tutelage of the Mandatory.

Point #4: The interpretation by the British Administration, and not opposed by the Mandate Commission, was that in regard to Palestine, no mention was made of independence nor was there any reference to the assistance and advice of a Mandatory.

​

Shortly afterwards, the Allies concluded the first Treaty of Peace with Turkey. Article 95 of that Treaty drew an essential distinction between the status of Mesopotamia and Syria and the status of Palestine. The first two countries were provisionally recognised as independent States, whereas, in regard to Palestine, no mention was made of independence nor was there any reference to the assistance and advice of a Mandatory. The article referred only to the administration of the country by a Mandatory chosen by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, without making any reservation in regard to the character of the administration.​

​

That had been the second surprise and disappointment suffered by the Arabs, who thus saw their national and political hopes vanishing. This disappointment had been all the more keen as Article 1 of the Mandate for Palestine provided for the institution in this territory, in contrast with the other Asiatic territories under mandate, of a direct system of administration, the British Government being furnished with full legislative and administrative powers.​

SOURCE: MINUTES OF THE SEVENTEENTH (Extraordinary) SESSION Held at Geneva from June 3rd to 21st, 1930​

You cannot attempt to apply the logic of today, nearly a century later, to interpretations and understandings made a matter of record nearly a hundred years ago. The Article 1 authorization is straight forward, sweeping, and powerful. There was no tricky language. "The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate."

(A RELATED SIDEBAR ISSUE)

Very often, you return no matters related to this subject circles back around to the Jews invaded the Palestine territory. Well, let's head this off at the pass.

Books upon books can and have been written on this subject matter, but at the end of the day, what difficulties the Arab Palestinians find themselves in today, made out of their own poor leadership. Nothing more! While both sides of the political equation have made some serious mistakes (no one is saying that the Israelis are perfect), the conflict is a generationally based hatred, passed-down through the discontented families.

​

In view of these convictions,... They also felt resentment towards the mandatory Power, owing to an alleged lack of sincerity. Their resentment towards the Jews was due to the fact that they regarded them as the real authors of their disappointment and therefore responsible for an indefinite adjournment of the realisation of the political hopes of the Arab population. There must be no mistake on this point. The resentment, or even the hatred, of certain portions of the Arab population was not, in the first instance, provoked by the immigration and subsequent activities of the Jews. The hostility of the Arabs had deeper roots, and it was not directed solely against the Jews.​

SOURCE: MINUTES OF THE SEVENTEENTH (Extraordinary) SESSION Held at Geneva from June 3rd to 21st, 1930​

​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

BLUF: Article 95 of that Treaty (of Lausanne 1923) drew an essential distinction between the status of Mesopotamia and Syria and the status of Palestine. The first two countries were provisionally recognised as independent States, whereas, in regard to Palestine, no mention was made of independence nor was there any reference to the assistance and advice of a Mandatory.

Didn't mention anything about what you said.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Growing Arab Support For Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,

BLUF: Article 95 of that Treaty (of Lausanne 1923) drew an essential distinction between the status of Mesopotamia and Syria and the status of Palestine. The first two countries were provisionally recognised as independent States, whereas, in regard to Palestine, no mention was made of independence nor was there any reference to the assistance and advice of a Mandatory.

The land was ceded to the new states.

What new states?

The "Class A" Mandates: Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Point #1:

◈ Lebanon was a partition out of Syria.​

View attachment 387998​

​

◈ Trans-Jordan was a partition out of Palestine.​

View attachment 388000​

Note: While we say "A" Mandates (Syria and Lebanon, Palestine and Transjordan, and Iraq), there are only three Mandates of a Type "A" nature. The territories are "provisionally" recognized as independent but subject to the civil administration by the Mandatory which continues to provide the advice and assistance until such time as it is able to stand alone.

Point #2:

◈ Lebanon became independent on 22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)​

◈ Syria became independent on 17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration).​

◈ Jordan became independent on 25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)​

◈ Israel became independent on 15 May 1948 (following League of Nations mandate under British administration)​

Point #3: The Arab Palestinians declined to participate in establishing a self-governing nation under the tutelage of the Mandatory.

Point #4: The interpretation by the British Administration, and not opposed by the Mandate Commission, was that in regard to Palestine, no mention was made of independence nor was there any reference to the assistance and advice of a Mandatory.

​

Shortly afterwards, the Allies concluded the first Treaty of Peace with Turkey. Article 95 of that Treaty drew an essential distinction between the status of Mesopotamia and Syria and the status of Palestine. The first two countries were provisionally recognised as independent States, whereas, in regard to Palestine, no mention was made of independence nor was there any reference to the assistance and advice of a Mandatory. The article referred only to the administration of the country by a Mandatory chosen by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, without making any reservation in regard to the character of the administration.​

​

That had been the second surprise and disappointment suffered by the Arabs, who thus saw their national and political hopes vanishing. This disappointment had been all the more keen as Article 1 of the Mandate for Palestine provided for the institution in this territory, in contrast with the other Asiatic territories under mandate, of a direct system of administration, the British Government being furnished with full legislative and administrative powers.​

SOURCE: MINUTES OF THE SEVENTEENTH (Extraordinary) SESSION Held at Geneva from June 3rd to 21st, 1930​

You cannot attempt to apply the logic of today, nearly a century later, to interpretations and understandings made a matter of record nearly a hundred years ago. The Article 1 authorization is straight forward, sweeping, and powerful. There was no tricky language. "The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate."

(A RELATED SIDEBAR ISSUE)

Very often, you return no matters related to this subject circles back around to the Jews invaded the Palestine territory. Well, let's head this off at the pass.

Books upon books can and have been written on this subject matter, but at the end of the day, what difficulties the Arab Palestinians find themselves in today, made out of their own poor leadership. Nothing more! While both sides of the political equation have made some serious mistakes (no one is saying that the Israelis are perfect), the conflict is a generationally based hatred, passed-down through the discontented families.

​

In view of these convictions,... They also felt resentment towards the mandatory Power, owing to an alleged lack of sincerity. Their resentment towards the Jews was due to the fact that they regarded them as the real authors of their disappointment and therefore responsible for an indefinite adjournment of the realisation of the political hopes of the Arab population. There must be no mistake on this point. The resentment, or even the hatred, of certain portions of the Arab population was not, in the first instance, provoked by the immigration and subsequent activities of the Jews. The hostility of the Arabs had deeper roots, and it was not directed solely against the Jews.​

SOURCE: MINUTES OF THE SEVENTEENTH (Extraordinary) SESSION Held at Geneva from June 3rd to 21st, 1930​

​

Most Respectfully,
R

SOURCE: MINUTES OF THE SEVENTEENTH (Extraordinary) SESSION Held at Geneva from June 3rd to 21st, 1930

I tried to read this. It is page after page after page of horseshit. They spent months and years with inquires and commissions to say nothing.

They should have just said "We fucked up big time and we are too stupid to fix it." They started a hundred year (and counting) war and they still won't own up to what they did.

If Britain followed the LoN Covenant, they could have been in and out of Palestine in 5-10 years and there would be peace.

 

[rylah]

RE: Growing Arab Support For Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,

BLUF: Article 95 of that Treaty (of Lausanne 1923) drew an essential distinction between the status of Mesopotamia and Syria and the status of Palestine. The first two countries were provisionally recognised as independent States, whereas, in regard to Palestine, no mention was made of independence nor was there any reference to the assistance and advice of a Mandatory.

The land was ceded to the new states.

What new states?

The "Class A" Mandates: Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Point #1:

◈ Lebanon was a partition out of Syria.​

View attachment 387998​

​

◈ Trans-Jordan was a partition out of Palestine.​

View attachment 388000​

Note: While we say "A" Mandates (Syria and Lebanon, Palestine and Transjordan, and Iraq), there are only three Mandates of a Type "A" nature. The territories are "provisionally" recognized as independent but subject to the civil administration by the Mandatory which continues to provide the advice and assistance until such time as it is able to stand alone.

Point #2:

◈ Lebanon became independent on 22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)​

◈ Syria became independent on 17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration).​

◈ Jordan became independent on 25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)​

◈ Israel became independent on 15 May 1948 (following League of Nations mandate under British administration)​

Point #3: The Arab Palestinians declined to participate in establishing a self-governing nation under the tutelage of the Mandatory.

Point #4: The interpretation by the British Administration, and not opposed by the Mandate Commission, was that in regard to Palestine, no mention was made of independence nor was there any reference to the assistance and advice of a Mandatory.

​

Shortly afterwards, the Allies concluded the first Treaty of Peace with Turkey. Article 95 of that Treaty drew an essential distinction between the status of Mesopotamia and Syria and the status of Palestine. The first two countries were provisionally recognised as independent States, whereas, in regard to Palestine, no mention was made of independence nor was there any reference to the assistance and advice of a Mandatory. The article referred only to the administration of the country by a Mandatory chosen by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, without making any reservation in regard to the character of the administration.​

​

That had been the second surprise and disappointment suffered by the Arabs, who thus saw their national and political hopes vanishing. This disappointment had been all the more keen as Article 1 of the Mandate for Palestine provided for the institution in this territory, in contrast with the other Asiatic territories under mandate, of a direct system of administration, the British Government being furnished with full legislative and administrative powers.​

SOURCE: MINUTES OF THE SEVENTEENTH (Extraordinary) SESSION Held at Geneva from June 3rd to 21st, 1930​

You cannot attempt to apply the logic of today, nearly a century later, to interpretations and understandings made a matter of record nearly a hundred years ago. The Article 1 authorization is straight forward, sweeping, and powerful. There was no tricky language. "The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate."

(A RELATED SIDEBAR ISSUE)

Very often, you return no matters related to this subject circles back around to the Jews invaded the Palestine territory. Well, let's head this off at the pass.

Books upon books can and have been written on this subject matter, but at the end of the day, what difficulties the Arab Palestinians find themselves in today, made out of their own poor leadership. Nothing more! While both sides of the political equation have made some serious mistakes (no one is saying that the Israelis are perfect), the conflict is a generationally based hatred, passed-down through the discontented families.

​

In view of these convictions,... They also felt resentment towards the mandatory Power, owing to an alleged lack of sincerity. Their resentment towards the Jews was due to the fact that they regarded them as the real authors of their disappointment and therefore responsible for an indefinite adjournment of the realisation of the political hopes of the Arab population. There must be no mistake on this point. The resentment, or even the hatred, of certain portions of the Arab population was not, in the first instance, provoked by the immigration and subsequent activities of the Jews. The hostility of the Arabs had deeper roots, and it was not directed solely against the Jews.​

SOURCE: MINUTES OF THE SEVENTEENTH (Extraordinary) SESSION Held at Geneva from June 3rd to 21st, 1930​

​

Most Respectfully,
R

SOURCE: MINUTES OF THE SEVENTEENTH (Extraordinary) SESSION Held at Geneva from June 3rd to 21st, 1930

I tried to read this. It is page after page after page of horseshit. They spent months and years with inquires and commissions to say nothing.

They should have just said "We fucked up big time and we are too stupid to fix it." They started a hundred year (and counting) war and they still won't own up to what they did.

If Britain followed the LoN Covenant, they could have been in and out of Palestine in 5-10 years and there would be peace.

What peace would there be?

Would the Arabs help Britain invade or not,
the war already began with the Jewish uprising in response to Arab pogroms.

Even by your definitions,
the war started before the Brits came.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Growing Arab Support For Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,

I think you need to go back and look at the Exhibit for the direct quote.

BLUF: Article 95 of that Treaty (of Lausanne 1923) drew an essential distinction between the status of Mesopotamia and Syria and the status of Palestine. The first two countries were provisionally recognised as independent States, whereas, in regard to Palestine, no mention was made of independence nor was there any reference to the assistance and advice of a Mandatory.

Didn't mention anything about what you said.

(COMMENT)

There is much more to the "Historical Record" and just the Covenant, Treaty, Order, and Mandate. There are reporting sessions to the Permanent Mandates Commission, and the Commission's Report to the Council.


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Growing Arab Support For Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,

BLUF: Article 95 of that Treaty (of Lausanne 1923) drew an essential distinction between the status of Mesopotamia and Syria and the status of Palestine. The first two countries were provisionally recognised as independent States, whereas, in regard to Palestine, no mention was made of independence nor was there any reference to the assistance and advice of a Mandatory.

The land was ceded to the new states.

What new states?

The "Class A" Mandates: Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Point #1:

◈ Lebanon was a partition out of Syria.​

View attachment 387998​

​

◈ Trans-Jordan was a partition out of Palestine.​

View attachment 388000​

Note: While we say "A" Mandates (Syria and Lebanon, Palestine and Transjordan, and Iraq), there are only three Mandates of a Type "A" nature. The territories are "provisionally" recognized as independent but subject to the civil administration by the Mandatory which continues to provide the advice and assistance until such time as it is able to stand alone.

Point #2:

◈ Lebanon became independent on 22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)​

◈ Syria became independent on 17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration).​

◈ Jordan became independent on 25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)​

◈ Israel became independent on 15 May 1948 (following League of Nations mandate under British administration)​

Point #3: The Arab Palestinians declined to participate in establishing a self-governing nation under the tutelage of the Mandatory.

Point #4: The interpretation by the British Administration, and not opposed by the Mandate Commission, was that in regard to Palestine, no mention was made of independence nor was there any reference to the assistance and advice of a Mandatory.

​

Shortly afterwards, the Allies concluded the first Treaty of Peace with Turkey. Article 95 of that Treaty drew an essential distinction between the status of Mesopotamia and Syria and the status of Palestine. The first two countries were provisionally recognised as independent States, whereas, in regard to Palestine, no mention was made of independence nor was there any reference to the assistance and advice of a Mandatory. The article referred only to the administration of the country by a Mandatory chosen by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, without making any reservation in regard to the character of the administration.​

​

That had been the second surprise and disappointment suffered by the Arabs, who thus saw their national and political hopes vanishing. This disappointment had been all the more keen as Article 1 of the Mandate for Palestine provided for the institution in this territory, in contrast with the other Asiatic territories under mandate, of a direct system of administration, the British Government being furnished with full legislative and administrative powers.​

SOURCE: MINUTES OF THE SEVENTEENTH (Extraordinary) SESSION Held at Geneva from June 3rd to 21st, 1930​

You cannot attempt to apply the logic of today, nearly a century later, to interpretations and understandings made a matter of record nearly a hundred years ago. The Article 1 authorization is straight forward, sweeping, and powerful. There was no tricky language. "The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate."

(A RELATED SIDEBAR ISSUE)

Very often, you return no matters related to this subject circles back around to the Jews invaded the Palestine territory. Well, let's head this off at the pass.

Books upon books can and have been written on this subject matter, but at the end of the day, what difficulties the Arab Palestinians find themselves in today, made out of their own poor leadership. Nothing more! While both sides of the political equation have made some serious mistakes (no one is saying that the Israelis are perfect), the conflict is a generationally based hatred, passed-down through the discontented families.

​

In view of these convictions,... They also felt resentment towards the mandatory Power, owing to an alleged lack of sincerity. Their resentment towards the Jews was due to the fact that they regarded them as the real authors of their disappointment and therefore responsible for an indefinite adjournment of the realisation of the political hopes of the Arab population. There must be no mistake on this point. The resentment, or even the hatred, of certain portions of the Arab population was not, in the first instance, provoked by the immigration and subsequent activities of the Jews. The hostility of the Arabs had deeper roots, and it was not directed solely against the Jews.​

SOURCE: MINUTES OF THE SEVENTEENTH (Extraordinary) SESSION Held at Geneva from June 3rd to 21st, 1930​

​

Most Respectfully,
R

SOURCE: MINUTES OF THE SEVENTEENTH (Extraordinary) SESSION Held at Geneva from June 3rd to 21st, 1930

I tried to read this. It is page after page after page of horseshit. They spent months and years with inquires and commissions to say nothing.

They should have just said "We fucked up big time and we are too stupid to fix it." They started a hundred year (and counting) war and they still won't own up to what they did.

If Britain followed the LoN Covenant, they could have been in and out of Palestine in 5-10 years and there would be peace.

What peace would there be?

Would the Arabs help Britain invade or not,
the war already began with the Jewish uprising in response to Arab pogroms.

Even by your definitions,
the war started before the Brits came.

What war would there be?

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Growing Arab Support For Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,

I think you need to go back and look at the Exhibit for the direct quote.

BLUF: Article 95 of that Treaty (of Lausanne 1923) drew an essential distinction between the status of Mesopotamia and Syria and the status of Palestine. The first two countries were provisionally recognised as independent States, whereas, in regard to Palestine, no mention was made of independence nor was there any reference to the assistance and advice of a Mandatory.

Didn't mention anything about what you said.

(COMMENT)

There is much more to the "Historical Record" and just the Covenant, Treaty, Order, and Mandate. There are reporting sessions to the Permanent Mandates Commission, and the Commission's Report to the Council.


Most Respectfully,
R

I think you need to go back and look at the Exhibit for the direct quote.

Palestine is not mentioned in your link.

 

[rylah]

RE: Growing Arab Support For Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,

BLUF: Article 95 of that Treaty (of Lausanne 1923) drew an essential distinction between the status of Mesopotamia and Syria and the status of Palestine. The first two countries were provisionally recognised as independent States, whereas, in regard to Palestine, no mention was made of independence nor was there any reference to the assistance and advice of a Mandatory.

The land was ceded to the new states.

What new states?

The "Class A" Mandates: Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Point #1:

◈ Lebanon was a partition out of Syria.​

View attachment 387998​

​

◈ Trans-Jordan was a partition out of Palestine.​

View attachment 388000​

Note: While we say "A" Mandates (Syria and Lebanon, Palestine and Transjordan, and Iraq), there are only three Mandates of a Type "A" nature. The territories are "provisionally" recognized as independent but subject to the civil administration by the Mandatory which continues to provide the advice and assistance until such time as it is able to stand alone.

Point #2:

◈ Lebanon became independent on 22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)​

◈ Syria became independent on 17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration).​

◈ Jordan became independent on 25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)​

◈ Israel became independent on 15 May 1948 (following League of Nations mandate under British administration)​

Point #3: The Arab Palestinians declined to participate in establishing a self-governing nation under the tutelage of the Mandatory.

Point #4: The interpretation by the British Administration, and not opposed by the Mandate Commission, was that in regard to Palestine, no mention was made of independence nor was there any reference to the assistance and advice of a Mandatory.

​

Shortly afterwards, the Allies concluded the first Treaty of Peace with Turkey. Article 95 of that Treaty drew an essential distinction between the status of Mesopotamia and Syria and the status of Palestine. The first two countries were provisionally recognised as independent States, whereas, in regard to Palestine, no mention was made of independence nor was there any reference to the assistance and advice of a Mandatory. The article referred only to the administration of the country by a Mandatory chosen by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, without making any reservation in regard to the character of the administration.​

​

That had been the second surprise and disappointment suffered by the Arabs, who thus saw their national and political hopes vanishing. This disappointment had been all the more keen as Article 1 of the Mandate for Palestine provided for the institution in this territory, in contrast with the other Asiatic territories under mandate, of a direct system of administration, the British Government being furnished with full legislative and administrative powers.​

SOURCE: MINUTES OF THE SEVENTEENTH (Extraordinary) SESSION Held at Geneva from June 3rd to 21st, 1930​

You cannot attempt to apply the logic of today, nearly a century later, to interpretations and understandings made a matter of record nearly a hundred years ago. The Article 1 authorization is straight forward, sweeping, and powerful. There was no tricky language. "The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate."

(A RELATED SIDEBAR ISSUE)

Very often, you return no matters related to this subject circles back around to the Jews invaded the Palestine territory. Well, let's head this off at the pass.

Books upon books can and have been written on this subject matter, but at the end of the day, what difficulties the Arab Palestinians find themselves in today, made out of their own poor leadership. Nothing more! While both sides of the political equation have made some serious mistakes (no one is saying that the Israelis are perfect), the conflict is a generationally based hatred, passed-down through the discontented families.

​

In view of these convictions,... They also felt resentment towards the mandatory Power, owing to an alleged lack of sincerity. Their resentment towards the Jews was due to the fact that they regarded them as the real authors of their disappointment and therefore responsible for an indefinite adjournment of the realisation of the political hopes of the Arab population. There must be no mistake on this point. The resentment, or even the hatred, of certain portions of the Arab population was not, in the first instance, provoked by the immigration and subsequent activities of the Jews. The hostility of the Arabs had deeper roots, and it was not directed solely against the Jews.​

SOURCE: MINUTES OF THE SEVENTEENTH (Extraordinary) SESSION Held at Geneva from June 3rd to 21st, 1930​

​

Most Respectfully,
R

SOURCE: MINUTES OF THE SEVENTEENTH (Extraordinary) SESSION Held at Geneva from June 3rd to 21st, 1930

I tried to read this. It is page after page after page of horseshit. They spent months and years with inquires and commissions to say nothing.

They should have just said "We fucked up big time and we are too stupid to fix it." They started a hundred year (and counting) war and they still won't own up to what they did.

If Britain followed the LoN Covenant, they could have been in and out of Palestine in 5-10 years and there would be peace.

What peace would there be?

Would the Arabs help Britain invade or not,
the war already began with the Jewish uprising in response to Arab pogroms.

Even by your definitions,
the war started before the Brits came.

What war would there be?

Arab-Israeli war.

Arabs didn't realize what kind of enemies they made when they expelled the Jews from all holy cities.

The political Zionist organization was initiated as a response to the Arab pogroms across the Caliphate.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Growing Arab Support For Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,

BLUF: Article 95 of that Treaty (of Lausanne 1923) drew an essential distinction between the status of Mesopotamia and Syria and the status of Palestine. The first two countries were provisionally recognised as independent States, whereas, in regard to Palestine, no mention was made of independence nor was there any reference to the assistance and advice of a Mandatory.

The land was ceded to the new states.

What new states?

The "Class A" Mandates: Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Point #1:

◈ Lebanon was a partition out of Syria.​

View attachment 387998​

​

◈ Trans-Jordan was a partition out of Palestine.​

View attachment 388000​

Note: While we say "A" Mandates (Syria and Lebanon, Palestine and Transjordan, and Iraq), there are only three Mandates of a Type "A" nature. The territories are "provisionally" recognized as independent but subject to the civil administration by the Mandatory which continues to provide the advice and assistance until such time as it is able to stand alone.

Point #2:

◈ Lebanon became independent on 22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)​

◈ Syria became independent on 17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration).​

◈ Jordan became independent on 25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)​

◈ Israel became independent on 15 May 1948 (following League of Nations mandate under British administration)​

Point #3: The Arab Palestinians declined to participate in establishing a self-governing nation under the tutelage of the Mandatory.

Point #4: The interpretation by the British Administration, and not opposed by the Mandate Commission, was that in regard to Palestine, no mention was made of independence nor was there any reference to the assistance and advice of a Mandatory.

​

Shortly afterwards, the Allies concluded the first Treaty of Peace with Turkey. Article 95 of that Treaty drew an essential distinction between the status of Mesopotamia and Syria and the status of Palestine. The first two countries were provisionally recognised as independent States, whereas, in regard to Palestine, no mention was made of independence nor was there any reference to the assistance and advice of a Mandatory. The article referred only to the administration of the country by a Mandatory chosen by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, without making any reservation in regard to the character of the administration.​

​

That had been the second surprise and disappointment suffered by the Arabs, who thus saw their national and political hopes vanishing. This disappointment had been all the more keen as Article 1 of the Mandate for Palestine provided for the institution in this territory, in contrast with the other Asiatic territories under mandate, of a direct system of administration, the British Government being furnished with full legislative and administrative powers.​

SOURCE: MINUTES OF THE SEVENTEENTH (Extraordinary) SESSION Held at Geneva from June 3rd to 21st, 1930​

You cannot attempt to apply the logic of today, nearly a century later, to interpretations and understandings made a matter of record nearly a hundred years ago. The Article 1 authorization is straight forward, sweeping, and powerful. There was no tricky language. "The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate."

(A RELATED SIDEBAR ISSUE)

Very often, you return no matters related to this subject circles back around to the Jews invaded the Palestine territory. Well, let's head this off at the pass.

Books upon books can and have been written on this subject matter, but at the end of the day, what difficulties the Arab Palestinians find themselves in today, made out of their own poor leadership. Nothing more! While both sides of the political equation have made some serious mistakes (no one is saying that the Israelis are perfect), the conflict is a generationally based hatred, passed-down through the discontented families.

​

In view of these convictions,... They also felt resentment towards the mandatory Power, owing to an alleged lack of sincerity. Their resentment towards the Jews was due to the fact that they regarded them as the real authors of their disappointment and therefore responsible for an indefinite adjournment of the realisation of the political hopes of the Arab population. There must be no mistake on this point. The resentment, or even the hatred, of certain portions of the Arab population was not, in the first instance, provoked by the immigration and subsequent activities of the Jews. The hostility of the Arabs had deeper roots, and it was not directed solely against the Jews.​

SOURCE: MINUTES OF THE SEVENTEENTH (Extraordinary) SESSION Held at Geneva from June 3rd to 21st, 1930​

​

Most Respectfully,
R

SOURCE: MINUTES OF THE SEVENTEENTH (Extraordinary) SESSION Held at Geneva from June 3rd to 21st, 1930

I tried to read this. It is page after page after page of horseshit. They spent months and years with inquires and commissions to say nothing.

They should have just said "We fucked up big time and we are too stupid to fix it." They started a hundred year (and counting) war and they still won't own up to what they did.

If Britain followed the LoN Covenant, they could have been in and out of Palestine in 5-10 years and there would be peace.

What peace would there be?

Would the Arabs help Britain invade or not,
the war already began with the Jewish uprising in response to Arab pogroms.

Even by your definitions,
the war started before the Brits came.

what difficulties the Arab Palestinians find themselves in today, made out of their own poor leadership.

Palestine only had an elected government between March and June of 2007.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Growing Arab Support For Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,

BLUF: Article 95 of that Treaty (of Lausanne 1923) drew an essential distinction between the status of Mesopotamia and Syria and the status of Palestine. The first two countries were provisionally recognised as independent States, whereas, in regard to Palestine, no mention was made of independence nor was there any reference to the assistance and advice of a Mandatory.

The land was ceded to the new states.

What new states?

The "Class A" Mandates: Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Point #1:

◈ Lebanon was a partition out of Syria.​

View attachment 387998​

​

◈ Trans-Jordan was a partition out of Palestine.​

View attachment 388000​

Note: While we say "A" Mandates (Syria and Lebanon, Palestine and Transjordan, and Iraq), there are only three Mandates of a Type "A" nature. The territories are "provisionally" recognized as independent but subject to the civil administration by the Mandatory which continues to provide the advice and assistance until such time as it is able to stand alone.

Point #2:

◈ Lebanon became independent on 22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)​

◈ Syria became independent on 17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration).​

◈ Jordan became independent on 25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)​

◈ Israel became independent on 15 May 1948 (following League of Nations mandate under British administration)​

Point #3: The Arab Palestinians declined to participate in establishing a self-governing nation under the tutelage of the Mandatory.

Point #4: The interpretation by the British Administration, and not opposed by the Mandate Commission, was that in regard to Palestine, no mention was made of independence nor was there any reference to the assistance and advice of a Mandatory.

​

Shortly afterwards, the Allies concluded the first Treaty of Peace with Turkey. Article 95 of that Treaty drew an essential distinction between the status of Mesopotamia and Syria and the status of Palestine. The first two countries were provisionally recognised as independent States, whereas, in regard to Palestine, no mention was made of independence nor was there any reference to the assistance and advice of a Mandatory. The article referred only to the administration of the country by a Mandatory chosen by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, without making any reservation in regard to the character of the administration.​

​

That had been the second surprise and disappointment suffered by the Arabs, who thus saw their national and political hopes vanishing. This disappointment had been all the more keen as Article 1 of the Mandate for Palestine provided for the institution in this territory, in contrast with the other Asiatic territories under mandate, of a direct system of administration, the British Government being furnished with full legislative and administrative powers.​

SOURCE: MINUTES OF THE SEVENTEENTH (Extraordinary) SESSION Held at Geneva from June 3rd to 21st, 1930​

You cannot attempt to apply the logic of today, nearly a century later, to interpretations and understandings made a matter of record nearly a hundred years ago. The Article 1 authorization is straight forward, sweeping, and powerful. There was no tricky language. "The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate."

(A RELATED SIDEBAR ISSUE)

Very often, you return no matters related to this subject circles back around to the Jews invaded the Palestine territory. Well, let's head this off at the pass.

Books upon books can and have been written on this subject matter, but at the end of the day, what difficulties the Arab Palestinians find themselves in today, made out of their own poor leadership. Nothing more! While both sides of the political equation have made some serious mistakes (no one is saying that the Israelis are perfect), the conflict is a generationally based hatred, passed-down through the discontented families.

​

In view of these convictions,... They also felt resentment towards the mandatory Power, owing to an alleged lack of sincerity. Their resentment towards the Jews was due to the fact that they regarded them as the real authors of their disappointment and therefore responsible for an indefinite adjournment of the realisation of the political hopes of the Arab population. There must be no mistake on this point. The resentment, or even the hatred, of certain portions of the Arab population was not, in the first instance, provoked by the immigration and subsequent activities of the Jews. The hostility of the Arabs had deeper roots, and it was not directed solely against the Jews.​

SOURCE: MINUTES OF THE SEVENTEENTH (Extraordinary) SESSION Held at Geneva from June 3rd to 21st, 1930​

​

Most Respectfully,
R

SOURCE: MINUTES OF THE SEVENTEENTH (Extraordinary) SESSION Held at Geneva from June 3rd to 21st, 1930

I tried to read this. It is page after page after page of horseshit. They spent months and years with inquires and commissions to say nothing.

They should have just said "We fucked up big time and we are too stupid to fix it." They started a hundred year (and counting) war and they still won't own up to what they did.

If Britain followed the LoN Covenant, they could have been in and out of Palestine in 5-10 years and there would be peace.

What peace would there be?

Would the Arabs help Britain invade or not,
the war already began with the Jewish uprising in response to Arab pogroms.

Even by your definitions,
the war started before the Brits came.

What war would there be?

Arab-Israeli war.

Arabs didn't realize what kind of enemies they made when they expelled the Jews from all holy cities.

The political Zionist organization was initiated as a response to the Arab pogroms across the Caliphate.

Arab-Israeli war.

Wouldn't have been without Britain.

 

[rylah]

RE: Growing Arab Support For Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,

BLUF: Article 95 of that Treaty (of Lausanne 1923) drew an essential distinction between the status of Mesopotamia and Syria and the status of Palestine. The first two countries were provisionally recognised as independent States, whereas, in regard to Palestine, no mention was made of independence nor was there any reference to the assistance and advice of a Mandatory.

The land was ceded to the new states.

What new states?

The "Class A" Mandates: Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Point #1:

◈ Lebanon was a partition out of Syria.​

View attachment 387998​

​

◈ Trans-Jordan was a partition out of Palestine.​

View attachment 388000​

Note: While we say "A" Mandates (Syria and Lebanon, Palestine and Transjordan, and Iraq), there are only three Mandates of a Type "A" nature. The territories are "provisionally" recognized as independent but subject to the civil administration by the Mandatory which continues to provide the advice and assistance until such time as it is able to stand alone.

Point #2:

◈ Lebanon became independent on 22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)​

◈ Syria became independent on 17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration).​

◈ Jordan became independent on 25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)​

◈ Israel became independent on 15 May 1948 (following League of Nations mandate under British administration)​

Point #3: The Arab Palestinians declined to participate in establishing a self-governing nation under the tutelage of the Mandatory.

Point #4: The interpretation by the British Administration, and not opposed by the Mandate Commission, was that in regard to Palestine, no mention was made of independence nor was there any reference to the assistance and advice of a Mandatory.

​

Shortly afterwards, the Allies concluded the first Treaty of Peace with Turkey. Article 95 of that Treaty drew an essential distinction between the status of Mesopotamia and Syria and the status of Palestine. The first two countries were provisionally recognised as independent States, whereas, in regard to Palestine, no mention was made of independence nor was there any reference to the assistance and advice of a Mandatory. The article referred only to the administration of the country by a Mandatory chosen by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, without making any reservation in regard to the character of the administration.​

​

That had been the second surprise and disappointment suffered by the Arabs, who thus saw their national and political hopes vanishing. This disappointment had been all the more keen as Article 1 of the Mandate for Palestine provided for the institution in this territory, in contrast with the other Asiatic territories under mandate, of a direct system of administration, the British Government being furnished with full legislative and administrative powers.​

SOURCE: MINUTES OF THE SEVENTEENTH (Extraordinary) SESSION Held at Geneva from June 3rd to 21st, 1930​

You cannot attempt to apply the logic of today, nearly a century later, to interpretations and understandings made a matter of record nearly a hundred years ago. The Article 1 authorization is straight forward, sweeping, and powerful. There was no tricky language. "The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate."

(A RELATED SIDEBAR ISSUE)

Very often, you return no matters related to this subject circles back around to the Jews invaded the Palestine territory. Well, let's head this off at the pass.

Books upon books can and have been written on this subject matter, but at the end of the day, what difficulties the Arab Palestinians find themselves in today, made out of their own poor leadership. Nothing more! While both sides of the political equation have made some serious mistakes (no one is saying that the Israelis are perfect), the conflict is a generationally based hatred, passed-down through the discontented families.

​

In view of these convictions,... They also felt resentment towards the mandatory Power, owing to an alleged lack of sincerity. Their resentment towards the Jews was due to the fact that they regarded them as the real authors of their disappointment and therefore responsible for an indefinite adjournment of the realisation of the political hopes of the Arab population. There must be no mistake on this point. The resentment, or even the hatred, of certain portions of the Arab population was not, in the first instance, provoked by the immigration and subsequent activities of the Jews. The hostility of the Arabs had deeper roots, and it was not directed solely against the Jews.​

SOURCE: MINUTES OF THE SEVENTEENTH (Extraordinary) SESSION Held at Geneva from June 3rd to 21st, 1930​

​

Most Respectfully,
R

SOURCE: MINUTES OF THE SEVENTEENTH (Extraordinary) SESSION Held at Geneva from June 3rd to 21st, 1930

I tried to read this. It is page after page after page of horseshit. They spent months and years with inquires and commissions to say nothing.

They should have just said "We fucked up big time and we are too stupid to fix it." They started a hundred year (and counting) war and they still won't own up to what they did.

If Britain followed the LoN Covenant, they could have been in and out of Palestine in 5-10 years and there would be peace.

What peace would there be?

Would the Arabs help Britain invade or not,
the war already began with the Jewish uprising in response to Arab pogroms.

Even by your definitions,
the war started before the Brits came.

what difficulties the Arab Palestinians find themselves in today, made out of their own poor leadership.

Palestine only had an elected government between March and June of 2007.

So, had they ever a non-elected govt,
or any sort of govt before, of their own, that was any effective?

 

[Hollie]

With the Islamic Middle East changing around them, the Fatah terrorist syndicate fails to acknowledge that simple fact. The result of a decades-long willingness by the international community to fund Islamic terrorist dictators and the psychopaths created by those cult enclaves (Fatah and Hamas), we see the monsters we have helped to create.

Fatah official says pressures exerted against leadership won’t change their positions

english.wafa.ps

RAMALLAH, Sunday, September 13, 2020 (WAFA) – Mahmoud Aloul, the Deputy Chairman of ruling Fatah Movement, said today that Bahrain’s announcement on establishing diplomatic relations with the occupying state of Israel was a stab in the back, and a betrayal of the Palestinian cause, Jerusalem and humanity.

Aloul told the official Voice of Palestine radio that the positions of the Palestinian leadership and President Mahmoud Abbas are built upon the will of our people and its ability to withstand, stressing that the recent wave of normalization and the pressures exerted upon President Abbas and the leadership will never affect their positions at all.

 

[rylah]

RE: Growing Arab Support For Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,

BLUF: Article 95 of that Treaty (of Lausanne 1923) drew an essential distinction between the status of Mesopotamia and Syria and the status of Palestine. The first two countries were provisionally recognised as independent States, whereas, in regard to Palestine, no mention was made of independence nor was there any reference to the assistance and advice of a Mandatory.

The land was ceded to the new states.

What new states?

The "Class A" Mandates: Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Transjordan, and Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Point #1:

◈ Lebanon was a partition out of Syria.​

View attachment 387998​

​

◈ Trans-Jordan was a partition out of Palestine.​

View attachment 388000​

Note: While we say "A" Mandates (Syria and Lebanon, Palestine and Transjordan, and Iraq), there are only three Mandates of a Type "A" nature. The territories are "provisionally" recognized as independent but subject to the civil administration by the Mandatory which continues to provide the advice and assistance until such time as it is able to stand alone.

Point #2:

◈ Lebanon became independent on 22 November 1943 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration)​

◈ Syria became independent on 17 April 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under French administration).​

◈ Jordan became independent on 25 May 1946 (from League of Nations mandate under British administration)​

◈ Israel became independent on 15 May 1948 (following League of Nations mandate under British administration)​

Point #3: The Arab Palestinians declined to participate in establishing a self-governing nation under the tutelage of the Mandatory.

Point #4: The interpretation by the British Administration, and not opposed by the Mandate Commission, was that in regard to Palestine, no mention was made of independence nor was there any reference to the assistance and advice of a Mandatory.

​

Shortly afterwards, the Allies concluded the first Treaty of Peace with Turkey. Article 95 of that Treaty drew an essential distinction between the status of Mesopotamia and Syria and the status of Palestine. The first two countries were provisionally recognised as independent States, whereas, in regard to Palestine, no mention was made of independence nor was there any reference to the assistance and advice of a Mandatory. The article referred only to the administration of the country by a Mandatory chosen by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, without making any reservation in regard to the character of the administration.​

​

That had been the second surprise and disappointment suffered by the Arabs, who thus saw their national and political hopes vanishing. This disappointment had been all the more keen as Article 1 of the Mandate for Palestine provided for the institution in this territory, in contrast with the other Asiatic territories under mandate, of a direct system of administration, the British Government being furnished with full legislative and administrative powers.​

SOURCE: MINUTES OF THE SEVENTEENTH (Extraordinary) SESSION Held at Geneva from June 3rd to 21st, 1930​

You cannot attempt to apply the logic of today, nearly a century later, to interpretations and understandings made a matter of record nearly a hundred years ago. The Article 1 authorization is straight forward, sweeping, and powerful. There was no tricky language. "The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate."

(A RELATED SIDEBAR ISSUE)

Very often, you return no matters related to this subject circles back around to the Jews invaded the Palestine territory. Well, let's head this off at the pass.

Books upon books can and have been written on this subject matter, but at the end of the day, what difficulties the Arab Palestinians find themselves in today, made out of their own poor leadership. Nothing more! While both sides of the political equation have made some serious mistakes (no one is saying that the Israelis are perfect), the conflict is a generationally based hatred, passed-down through the discontented families.

​

In view of these convictions,... They also felt resentment towards the mandatory Power, owing to an alleged lack of sincerity. Their resentment towards the Jews was due to the fact that they regarded them as the real authors of their disappointment and therefore responsible for an indefinite adjournment of the realisation of the political hopes of the Arab population. There must be no mistake on this point. The resentment, or even the hatred, of certain portions of the Arab population was not, in the first instance, provoked by the immigration and subsequent activities of the Jews. The hostility of the Arabs had deeper roots, and it was not directed solely against the Jews.​

SOURCE: MINUTES OF THE SEVENTEENTH (Extraordinary) SESSION Held at Geneva from June 3rd to 21st, 1930​

​

Most Respectfully,
R

SOURCE: MINUTES OF THE SEVENTEENTH (Extraordinary) SESSION Held at Geneva from June 3rd to 21st, 1930

I tried to read this. It is page after page after page of horseshit. They spent months and years with inquires and commissions to say nothing.

They should have just said "We fucked up big time and we are too stupid to fix it." They started a hundred year (and counting) war and they still won't own up to what they did.

If Britain followed the LoN Covenant, they could have been in and out of Palestine in 5-10 years and there would be peace.

What peace would there be?

Would the Arabs help Britain invade or not,
the war already began with the Jewish uprising in response to Arab pogroms.

Even by your definitions,
the war started before the Brits came.

What war would there be?

Arab-Israeli war.

Arabs didn't realize what kind of enemies they made when they expelled the Jews from all holy cities.

The political Zionist organization was initiated as a response to the Arab pogroms across the Caliphate.

Arab-Israeli war.

Wouldn't have been without Britain.

You keep repeating that if not for Britain there was peace,
but the alternative you refer to is degradation and war.

Britain had nothing to do with the Arab pogroms, predating its invasion.
The expulsion of Jews from all holy cities - that's when the Arab-Israeli war started.

Arabs have no one to blame but themselves.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Growing Arab Support For Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: The entire of the meeting for which the MINUTES OF THE SEVENTEENTH (Extraordinary) SESSION Held at Geneva from June 3rd to 21st, 1930 were recorded was entirely about the progress and the then developments of the Mandate for Palestine.

I think you need to go back and look at the Exhibit for the direct quote.

Palestine is not mentioned in your link.

(COMMENT)

Treaties generally DO NOT LIST those subjects of no specific consequence as a singular issue. Palestine was a singular issue for which there was no specific obligation made. Thus the treaty was silent on Palestine.

The real question you have to ask is why every other inhabitant to an "A" Mandate was able to a self-governing nation EXCEPT for the Arab Palestinians? Forget all the other difficult whops you're trying to jump through (not that it makes any difference to the questions of Palestine a century later) and "focus."

THEN! Come back down to Earth and ask (realistically) what practical answers can be applied to the issues as they exist today?


Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Growing Arab Support For Israel
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Who was at fault for that. They call it a "self-governing institution" for a reason.

Palestine only had an elected government between March and June of 2007.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians were a surprise on two counts.

◈ They could not elect a non-corrupt government to save their ass.​

​

◈ They turned out to be a population that installed government, and admittedly a people, that openly support terrorist, and still do today.​

Most Respectfully,
R