All The News Anti-Israel Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss

[Rigby5]

Totally false.
Jews were given NOTHING at all except the promise of facilitated immigration.
The British did not own Palestine, could not legally give it to anyone else, and absolutely never did.
It always legally belonged to the native Palestinians, and the Arabs were always and still are the vast majority.
The Arabs are the only ones who paid for any land, and are the only ones with deeds and titles.
Almost all the Jews in Israel are illegal squatters who never paid for anything.

Sigh. The British did not "own" Palestine. No one is arguing that they did. The British also did not have sovereignty over Palestine, per se. No one is arguing that they did.

What they DID have was a Mandate to administer the territory until the people of the territory could become self-governing. The British government and the international community of the time determined that ONE of the peoples -- who needed to be protected until they could develop their own self-government -- was the Jewish people.

And private property ownership has NOTHING to do with sovereignty.

There are a few threads on this board that you should read. And you should also become familiar with the Mandate for Palestine.

The British Mandate for Palestine came from the Treaty of Sevres, which is very clear in that it was the Muslim Arabs who were being given independence and sovereignty in Palestine, not the Jewish People. In fact, the Jews were almost all immigrants, so a quota was established so that they would not immigrate in too large of numbers and cause problems.
But the problem was that too many did immigrate illegally, and they brought arms and trained veterans, who then started massacring Arab villages, like Dier Yassin.

It is true that it was decided that Jews did need protection, but it was NEVER intended to allow Jews to at all have any role in governing the country. They were only supposed to be involved in local government.

And YES, land ownership most certainly DOES have to do with sovereignty.
It is a basic and long standing legal principle that land ownership is the basis for sovereignty.
That is why in the US originally, only land owners could vote.
Land ownership is one of the main ways you determine who is native and who have native rights and sovereignty.
The Jewish immigrants not only did not own hardly any of the land at all, but never even tried to pay for what land they occupied. The Arab refugees are the legal owners of almost all of Israel.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Totally false.
Jews were given NOTHING at all except the promise of facilitated immigration.
The British did not own Palestine, could not legally give it to anyone else, and absolutely never did.
It always legally belonged to the native Palestinians, and the Arabs were always and still are the vast majority.
The Arabs are the only ones who paid for any land, and are the only ones with deeds and titles.
Almost all the Jews in Israel are illegal squatters who never paid for anything.

Sigh. The British did not "own" Palestine. No one is arguing that they did. The British also did not have sovereignty over Palestine, per se. No one is arguing that they did.

What they DID have was a Mandate to administer the territory until the people of the territory could become self-governing. The British government and the international community of the time determined that ONE of the peoples -- who needed to be protected until they could develop their own self-government -- was the Jewish people.

And private property ownership has NOTHING to do with sovereignty.

There are a few threads on this board that you should read. And you should also become familiar with the Mandate for Palestine.

The British Mandate for Palestine came from the Treaty of Sevres, which is very clear in that it was the Muslim Arabs who were being given independence and sovereignty in Palestine, not the Jewish People. In fact, the Jews were almost all immigrants, so a quota was established so that they would not immigrate in too large of numbers and cause problems.
But the problem was that too many did immigrate illegally, and they brought arms and trained veterans, who then started massacring Arab villages, like Dier Yassin.

It is true that it was decided that Jews did need protection, but it was NEVER intended to allow Jews to at all have any role in governing the country. They were only supposed to be involved in local government.

And YES, land ownership most certainly DOES have to do with sovereignty.
It is a basic and long standing legal principle that land ownership is the basis for sovereignty.
That is why in the US originally, only land owners could vote.
Land ownership is one of the main ways you determine who is native and who have native rights and sovereignty.
The Jewish immigrants not only did not own hardly any of the land at all, but never even tried to pay for what land they occupied. The Arab refugees are the legal owners of almost all of Israel.

WHICH Treaty of Sevres did you read?

British Mandate for Palestine

Main article: British Mandate of Palestine

The three principles of the British Balfour Declaration regarding Palestine were adopted in the Treaty of Sèvres:

ARTICLE 95: The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on 2 November 1917 by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

Treaty of Sèvres - Wikipedia


Where does is it mention in that Treaty that:

<<The British Mandate for Palestine came from the Treaty of Sevres, which is very clear in that it was the Muslim Arabs who were being given independence and sovereignty in Palestine, not the Jewish People.>>>

 

[Rigby5]

Totally false.
Jews were given NOTHING at all except the promise of facilitated immigration.
The British did not own Palestine, could not legally give it to anyone else, and absolutely never did.
It always legally belonged to the native Palestinians, and the Arabs were always and still are the vast majority.
The Arabs are the only ones who paid for any land, and are the only ones with deeds and titles.
Almost all the Jews in Israel are illegal squatters who never paid for anything.

Sigh. The British did not "own" Palestine. No one is arguing that they did. The British also did not have sovereignty over Palestine, per se. No one is arguing that they did.

What they DID have was a Mandate to administer the territory until the people of the territory could become self-governing. The British government and the international community of the time determined that ONE of the peoples -- who needed to be protected until they could develop their own self-government -- was the Jewish people.

And private property ownership has NOTHING to do with sovereignty.

There are a few threads on this board that you should read. And you should also become familiar with the Mandate for Palestine.

The British Mandate for Palestine came from the Treaty of Sevres, which is very clear in that it was the Muslim Arabs who were being given independence and sovereignty in Palestine, not the Jewish People. In fact, the Jews were almost all immigrants, so a quota was established so that they would not immigrate in too large of numbers and cause problems.
But the problem was that too many did immigrate illegally, and they brought arms and trained veterans, who then started massacring Arab villages, like Dier Yassin.

It is true that it was decided that Jews did need protection, but it was NEVER intended to allow Jews to at all have any role in governing the country. They were only supposed to be involved in local government.

And YES, land ownership most certainly DOES have to do with sovereignty.
It is a basic and long standing legal principle that land ownership is the basis for sovereignty.
That is why in the US originally, only land owners could vote.
Land ownership is one of the main ways you determine who is native and who have native rights and sovereignty.
The Jewish immigrants not only did not own hardly any of the land at all, but never even tried to pay for what land they occupied. The Arab refugees are the legal owners of almost all of Israel.

WHICH Treaty of Sevres did you read?

British Mandate for Palestine

Main article: British Mandate of Palestine

The three principles of the British Balfour Declaration regarding Palestine were adopted in the Treaty of Sèvres:

ARTICLE 95: The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on 2 November 1917 by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

Treaty of Sèvres - Wikipedia


Where does is it mention in that Treaty that:

<<The British Mandate for Palestine came from the Treaty of Sevres, which is very clear in that it was the Muslim Arabs who were being given independence and sovereignty in Palestine, not the Jewish People.>>>

You obviously have never read the Treaty of Severe.
It clearly says the inhabitants were to be given independent sovereignty, and that Jews were only to be allowed facilitated immigration to a local homeland INSIDE of Palestine, which was to be ruled by the native Arabs.

{...
ARTICLE 95.


The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
...}

Section I, Articles 1 - 260 - World War I Document Archive

There is no way to even remotely interpret the Treaty of Sevres as giving Jewish immigrants sovereignty over the native Arab majority.
It clearly says the civil rights of non-Jews in Palestine were not to be infringed.
That means the native Arab Majority was to have sovereignty, not the immigrant Jewish minority.

 

[Sixties Fan]

Totally false.
Jews were given NOTHING at all except the promise of facilitated immigration.
The British did not own Palestine, could not legally give it to anyone else, and absolutely never did.
It always legally belonged to the native Palestinians, and the Arabs were always and still are the vast majority.
The Arabs are the only ones who paid for any land, and are the only ones with deeds and titles.
Almost all the Jews in Israel are illegal squatters who never paid for anything.

Sigh. The British did not "own" Palestine. No one is arguing that they did. The British also did not have sovereignty over Palestine, per se. No one is arguing that they did.

What they DID have was a Mandate to administer the territory until the people of the territory could become self-governing. The British government and the international community of the time determined that ONE of the peoples -- who needed to be protected until they could develop their own self-government -- was the Jewish people.

And private property ownership has NOTHING to do with sovereignty.

There are a few threads on this board that you should read. And you should also become familiar with the Mandate for Palestine.

The British Mandate for Palestine came from the Treaty of Sevres, which is very clear in that it was the Muslim Arabs who were being given independence and sovereignty in Palestine, not the Jewish People. In fact, the Jews were almost all immigrants, so a quota was established so that they would not immigrate in too large of numbers and cause problems.
But the problem was that too many did immigrate illegally, and they brought arms and trained veterans, who then started massacring Arab villages, like Dier Yassin.

It is true that it was decided that Jews did need protection, but it was NEVER intended to allow Jews to at all have any role in governing the country. They were only supposed to be involved in local government.

And YES, land ownership most certainly DOES have to do with sovereignty.
It is a basic and long standing legal principle that land ownership is the basis for sovereignty.
That is why in the US originally, only land owners could vote.
Land ownership is one of the main ways you determine who is native and who have native rights and sovereignty.
The Jewish immigrants not only did not own hardly any of the land at all, but never even tried to pay for what land they occupied. The Arab refugees are the legal owners of almost all of Israel.

WHICH Treaty of Sevres did you read?

British Mandate for Palestine

Main article: British Mandate of Palestine

The three principles of the British Balfour Declaration regarding Palestine were adopted in the Treaty of Sèvres:

ARTICLE 95: The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on 2 November 1917 by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

Treaty of Sèvres - Wikipedia


Where does is it mention in that Treaty that:

<<The British Mandate for Palestine came from the Treaty of Sevres, which is very clear in that it was the Muslim Arabs who were being given independence and sovereignty in Palestine, not the Jewish People.>>>

You obviously have never read the Treaty of Severe.
It clearly says the inhabitants were to be given independent sovereignty, and that Jews were only to be allowed facilitated immigration to a local homeland INSIDE of Palestine, which was to be ruled by the native Arabs.

{...
ARTICLE 95.


The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
...}

Section I, Articles 1 - 260 - World War I Document Archive

There is no way to even remotely interpret the Treaty of Sevres as giving Jewish immigrants sovereignty over the native Arab majority.
It clearly says the civil rights of non-Jews in Palestine were not to be infringed.
That means the native Arab Majority was to have sovereignty, not the immigrant Jewish minority.

I read it very clearly.

Palestine is a region, named by the Romans to make the Jewish Nation forget their homeland. It did not work and Jews continued to live on the land through the Romans, the Byzantine, the Muslims (Arabs), Crusaders and the Ottoman invasion and conquest during all of those 2000 since the Roman invasion.

You may try to make the Arabs the native people of the land all you like. They totally do not agree with you as they will tell you that their native land is called the Arabian Peninsula.

You seem to want to understand only what you wish to understand out of the Mandate for Palestine. Or any of the other three Mandates.

So be it.

Denialism is a region of the mind most preferred by those who reject the Jewish Nation/People's right to sovereignty on their own Ancient Land.

 

[Shusha]

Jews were to be given facilitated immigration ... they were never to have any role in government or independence.

Patently untrue.

The Mandate for Palestine reads:

ART. 2.
The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

ART. 3.
The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances permit, encourage local autonomy.

in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.

The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

ART. 11.
The Administration of Palestine shall take all necessary measures to safeguard the interests of the community in connection with the development of the country, and, subject to any international obligations accepted by the Mandatory, shall have full power to provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the country or of the public works, services and utilities established or to be established therein. It shall introduce a land system appropriate to the needs of the country, having regard, among other things, to the desirability of promoting the close settlement and intensive cultivation of the land.

The Administration may arrange with the Jewish agency mentioned in Article 4 to construct or operate, upon fair and equitable terms, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country, in so far as these matters are not directly undertaken by the Administration. Any such arrangements shall provide that no profits distributed by such agency, directly or indirectly, shall exceed a reasonable rate of interest on the capital, and any further profits shall be utilised by it for the benefit of the country in a manner approved by the Administration.

(emphasis mine)

The Jewish people were explicitly granted a role in the powers of government with the explicit purpose of developing the self-government of the Jewish people.

That is completely and utterly ridiculous.
The word "homeland" means and has always meant NOT having sovereignty, but to be a district or safe haven inside of another country. For example, South Africa created tribal "homelands" for the Bantu and other tribes, which had absolutely NO sovereignty at all. "Homeland" always mean absolutely NO sovereignty.

And your quotes prove that.
For example:
{...
ART. 3.
The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances permit, encourage local autonomy.
...}
Local autonomy is an absolute denial of sovereignty.
It means cities and villages.
Jews were supposed to form local enclaves, inside of an Arab Palestine.

And that is also obvious not only by every single document, including the one you quote, but also any principle of law.
Clearly there were over a million Arab Muslims native to Palestine, who had already owned over 90% of the land.
There is absolutely no way the British could or would have then tried to create an illegal Jewish state.
It is preposterous and criminal to even conceive of such an absurd claim.
And it never happened.
The Balfour Declaration in fact clearly denies any remote possibility for Jewish sovereignty.

Wait, what?!

Are you trying to argue that the Jewish people are specifically prohibited from having sovereignty over any part of their historical territory in perpetuity?

 

[Shusha]

For example:
{...
ART. 3.
The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances permit, encourage local autonomy.
...}
Local autonomy is an absolute denial of sovereignty.

So you mean to tell me that the Mandate for Palestine, which specifically grants self-government powers to the Jewish people (and only the Jewish people), is actually a PROHIBITION on Jewish sovereignty?

You've GOT to be kidding me.

Um. You DO know that the international community recognized Israel as a State in 1949, right?! Awfully odd if Jewish sovereignty is specifically prohibited.

 

[Rigby5]

Totally false.
Jews were given NOTHING at all except the promise of facilitated immigration.
The British did not own Palestine, could not legally give it to anyone else, and absolutely never did.
It always legally belonged to the native Palestinians, and the Arabs were always and still are the vast majority.
The Arabs are the only ones who paid for any land, and are the only ones with deeds and titles.
Almost all the Jews in Israel are illegal squatters who never paid for anything.

Sigh. The British did not "own" Palestine. No one is arguing that they did. The British also did not have sovereignty over Palestine, per se. No one is arguing that they did.

What they DID have was a Mandate to administer the territory until the people of the territory could become self-governing. The British government and the international community of the time determined that ONE of the peoples -- who needed to be protected until they could develop their own self-government -- was the Jewish people.

And private property ownership has NOTHING to do with sovereignty.

There are a few threads on this board that you should read. And you should also become familiar with the Mandate for Palestine.

The British Mandate for Palestine came from the Treaty of Sevres, which is very clear in that it was the Muslim Arabs who were being given independence and sovereignty in Palestine, not the Jewish People. In fact, the Jews were almost all immigrants, so a quota was established so that they would not immigrate in too large of numbers and cause problems.
But the problem was that too many did immigrate illegally, and they brought arms and trained veterans, who then started massacring Arab villages, like Dier Yassin.

It is true that it was decided that Jews did need protection, but it was NEVER intended to allow Jews to at all have any role in governing the country. They were only supposed to be involved in local government.

And YES, land ownership most certainly DOES have to do with sovereignty.
It is a basic and long standing legal principle that land ownership is the basis for sovereignty.
That is why in the US originally, only land owners could vote.
Land ownership is one of the main ways you determine who is native and who have native rights and sovereignty.
The Jewish immigrants not only did not own hardly any of the land at all, but never even tried to pay for what land they occupied. The Arab refugees are the legal owners of almost all of Israel.

WHICH Treaty of Sevres did you read?

British Mandate for Palestine

Main article: British Mandate of Palestine

The three principles of the British Balfour Declaration regarding Palestine were adopted in the Treaty of Sèvres:

ARTICLE 95: The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on 2 November 1917 by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

Treaty of Sèvres - Wikipedia


Where does is it mention in that Treaty that:

<<The British Mandate for Palestine came from the Treaty of Sevres, which is very clear in that it was the Muslim Arabs who were being given independence and sovereignty in Palestine, not the Jewish People.>>>

You obviously have never read the Treaty of Severe.
It clearly says the inhabitants were to be given independent sovereignty, and that Jews were only to be allowed facilitated immigration to a local homeland INSIDE of Palestine, which was to be ruled by the native Arabs.

{...
ARTICLE 95.


The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
...}

Section I, Articles 1 - 260 - World War I Document Archive

There is no way to even remotely interpret the Treaty of Sevres as giving Jewish immigrants sovereignty over the native Arab majority.
It clearly says the civil rights of non-Jews in Palestine were not to be infringed.
That means the native Arab Majority was to have sovereignty, not the immigrant Jewish minority.

I read it very clearly.

Palestine is a region, named by the Romans to make the Jewish Nation forget their homeland. It did not work and Jews continued to live on the land through the Romans, the Byzantine, the Muslims (Arabs), Crusaders and the Ottoman invasion and conquest during all of those 2000 since the Roman invasion.

You may try to make the Arabs the native people of the land all you like. They totally do not agree with you as they will tell you that their native land is called the Arabian Peninsula.

You seem to want to understand only what you wish to understand out of the Mandate for Palestine. Or any of the other three Mandates.

So be it.

Denialism is a region of the mind most preferred by those who reject the Jewish Nation/People's right to sovereignty on their own Ancient Land.

Totally and completely wrong!
Palestine was named after the Philistine and Phoenician city states, and existed hundreds of years berfore the Hebrew invasion around 1000 BC.
It is NOT at all the Hebrew homeland, and their massacre of Canaanites like at Jericho, deny them having any right to the region at all. Not only did the Hebrew leave when the Romans forced them out, but previously the Assyrian and Babylonians got fed up and made them leave as well. Later the Crusaders also wiped them out, and it was only the Moslem protection that allowed some Jews to return. But in 1900, the population was only about 5% Jewish in all of Palestine. Even in Jerusalem the majority was always Muslim Arab.

And only an ignorant person would say that Arabs are from the Arabian peninsula or that the Palestinan Arabs came from there. Anyone who knows any history at all know that the Arab in the Arabian Peninsula came from Palestine, and that the Palestinians, like the Canaanites, Akkadians, Amorites, Urites, Philistine, Phoenicians, Nabatians, Chaldeans, etc., all predated the Arabian Peninsula and are the original Palestine natives.
The ONLY thing they got from the Arabian Peninsula was the unified language of Arabic.

It is not at all hard to understand the British Mandate for Palestine.
Since you clearly do not understand it, try reading the Churchill White Paper of 1922, that was intended to make most clear.

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922
{...
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 favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917.

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." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' 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 upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national 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.

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 are 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, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.

During the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community, now numbering 80,000
...}

 

[Rigby5]

Jews were to be given facilitated immigration ... they were never to have any role in government or independence.

Patently untrue.

The Mandate for Palestine reads:

ART. 2.
The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

ART. 3.
The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances permit, encourage local autonomy.

in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.

The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

ART. 11.
The Administration of Palestine shall take all necessary measures to safeguard the interests of the community in connection with the development of the country, and, subject to any international obligations accepted by the Mandatory, shall have full power to provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the country or of the public works, services and utilities established or to be established therein. It shall introduce a land system appropriate to the needs of the country, having regard, among other things, to the desirability of promoting the close settlement and intensive cultivation of the land.

The Administration may arrange with the Jewish agency mentioned in Article 4 to construct or operate, upon fair and equitable terms, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country, in so far as these matters are not directly undertaken by the Administration. Any such arrangements shall provide that no profits distributed by such agency, directly or indirectly, shall exceed a reasonable rate of interest on the capital, and any further profits shall be utilised by it for the benefit of the country in a manner approved by the Administration.

(emphasis mine)

The Jewish people were explicitly granted a role in the powers of government with the explicit purpose of developing the self-government of the Jewish people.

That is completely and utterly ridiculous.
The word "homeland" means and has always meant NOT having sovereignty, but to be a district or safe haven inside of another country. For example, South Africa created tribal "homelands" for the Bantu and other tribes, which had absolutely NO sovereignty at all. "Homeland" always mean absolutely NO sovereignty.

And your quotes prove that.
For example:
{...
ART. 3.
The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances permit, encourage local autonomy.
...}
Local autonomy is an absolute denial of sovereignty.
It means cities and villages.
Jews were supposed to form local enclaves, inside of an Arab Palestine.

And that is also obvious not only by every single document, including the one you quote, but also any principle of law.
Clearly there were over a million Arab Muslims native to Palestine, who had already owned over 90% of the land.
There is absolutely no way the British could or would have then tried to create an illegal Jewish state.
It is preposterous and criminal to even conceive of such an absurd claim.
And it never happened.
The Balfour Declaration in fact clearly denies any remote possibility for Jewish sovereignty.

Wait, what?!

Are you trying to argue that the Jewish people are specifically prohibited from having sovereignty over any part of their historical territory in perpetuity?

Palestine absolutely is NOT at all any historic Jewish territory. The Hebrew tribes did not invade until around 1000 BC, they were never the majority, and they gave up any right to rule by abusing and massacring natives, like the Canaanites at Jericho.
They were continually defeated and driven out by the Assyrians, Babylonians, Romans, and Crusaders.
They only ruled for a few hundred years, and their last time in power was actually as a puppet for the Romans.
For example, Herod was a convert and not really Jewish.
Jews are not even supposed to be going back to Jerusalem until the Messiah comes according to Judaism.
So the only Zionists are not even Jewish because they have to be secular atheists.

 

[Rigby5]

For example:
{...
ART. 3.
The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances permit, encourage local autonomy.
...}
Local autonomy is an absolute denial of sovereignty.

So you mean to tell me that the Mandate for Palestine, which specifically grants self-government powers to the Jewish people (and only the Jewish people), is actually a PROHIBITION on Jewish sovereignty?

You've GOT to be kidding me.

Um. You DO know that the international community recognized Israel as a State in 1949, right?! Awfully odd if Jewish sovereignty is specifically prohibited.

That is ridiculous.
Local autonomy means that Jews can run their own villages and cities.
Local autonomy absolutely forbids sovereignty.
Local autonomy is the exact opposite of sovereignty.
It is what Saddam gave the Kurds in Iraq.

And no it is not at all odd that the UN created Israel in 1949, because by 1949, because by then immigration increased the Jewish population to over 630,000. However, there were about 2 million total in Palestine, so clearly the Jews were never even close to being a majority in Palestine. They still are not, and are only about a third of the population.
It was still probably a mistake to do what the UN did because there was no legal, historic, or religious reason for it, but that can't likely be changed now.

 

[Shusha]

That is ridiculous.
Local autonomy means that Jews can run their own villages and cities.
Local autonomy absolutely forbids sovereignty.
Local autonomy is the exact opposite of sovereignty.

Hmmm. Bummer for Syria and Lebanon then. Since the exact same wording was used in the French Mandate. So if the locals in Syria and Lebanon are prohibited from sovereignty all over the Mandated territories -- who gets it?!

And no it is not at all odd that the UN created Israel in 1949, because by 1949...

Um. I didn't say that the UN created Israel. It didn't. I said the UN, the international community, most nations, RECOGNIZED Israel. How could they have done that if the Jewish people are PROHIBITED from having any kind of sovereignty?

 

[Shusha]

Palestine absolutely is NOT at all any historic Jewish territory. The Hebrew tribes did not invade until around 1000 BC, they were never the majority, and they gave up any right to rule by abusing and massacring natives, like the Canaanites at Jericho.
They were continually defeated and driven out by the Assyrians, Babylonians, Romans, and Crusaders.
They only ruled for a few hundred years, and their last time in power was actually as a puppet for the Romans.
For example, Herod was a convert and not really Jewish.
Jews are not even supposed to be going back to Jerusalem until the Messiah comes according to Judaism.
So the only Zionists are not even Jewish because they have to be secular atheists.

There are so many confusing and contradictory statements here, I don't even know where to go with this.

Let's start at ground zero. What is the criteria for self-determination and sovereignty over a particular piece of land?

History? Invasion? Majority? Right to rule? No abuse or massacre? Defeat? Length of rule? Length of time since rule was removed? Converts? Being "real"? Religious precepts? Secularism?

Seriously, dude, align your duckies and get back to me.

 

[Rigby5]

That is ridiculous.
Local autonomy means that Jews can run their own villages and cities.
Local autonomy absolutely forbids sovereignty.
Local autonomy is the exact opposite of sovereignty.

Hmmm. Bummer for Syria and Lebanon then. Since the exact same wording was used in the French Mandate. So Syria and Lebanon are illegal States, then? So if the locals are prohibited from sovereignty all over the Mandated territories -- who gets it?!

And no it is not at all odd that the UN created Israel in 1949, because by 1949...

Um. I didn't say that the UN created Israel. It didn't. I said the UN, the international community, most nations, RECOGNIZED Israel. How could they have done that if the Jewish people are PROHIBITED from having any kind of sovereignty?

Well you are totally wrong then, because the UN completely created Israel from no where in 1949. There was Israel or any legal basis for there ever being an Israel before then.

And I already explained what changed between 1920 when the Treaty of Sevres prohibited any Jewish sovereignty in Palestine, and in 1949 when the UN created Israel. It was that the Jewish population in Palestine went from 94,000 to 630,000, and increase of about a factor of 7.
However, that increase was mostly due to illegal immigration, so the UN was wrong to create Israel.
Illegal immigrants should not be counted when deciding sovereignty.

 

[Shusha]

Well you are totally wrong then, because the UN completely created Israel from no where in 1949.

The UN has no power to create States. How do you think States are created?

 

[Shusha]

And I already explained what changed between 1920 when the Treaty of Sevres prohibited any Jewish sovereignty in Palestine ...

No, you have not "explained" anything. You have made a statement of belief: "The Jewish people are prohibited from sovereignty."

Now you must define and defend that claim. So far, you have been entirely unsuccessful at doing so. Start by defining your claim. The Jewish people are prohibited from sovereignty - where? when? under what circumstances? because?

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Sigh. The British did not "own" Palestine. No one is arguing that they did. The British also did not have sovereignty over Palestine, per se. No one is arguing that they did.

What they DID have was a Mandate to administer the territory until the people of the territory could become self-governing. The British government and the international community of the time determined that ONE of the peoples -- who needed to be protected until they could develop their own self-government -- was the Jewish people.

And private property ownership has NOTHING to do with sovereignty.

There are a few threads on this board that you should read. And you should also become familiar with the Mandate for Palestine.

The British Mandate for Palestine came from the Treaty of Sevres, which is very clear in that it was the Muslim Arabs who were being given independence and sovereignty in Palestine, not the Jewish People. In fact, the Jews were almost all immigrants, so a quota was established so that they would not immigrate in too large of numbers and cause problems.
But the problem was that too many did immigrate illegally, and they brought arms and trained veterans, who then started massacring Arab villages, like Dier Yassin.

It is true that it was decided that Jews did need protection, but it was NEVER intended to allow Jews to at all have any role in governing the country. They were only supposed to be involved in local government.

And YES, land ownership most certainly DOES have to do with sovereignty.
It is a basic and long standing legal principle that land ownership is the basis for sovereignty.
That is why in the US originally, only land owners could vote.
Land ownership is one of the main ways you determine who is native and who have native rights and sovereignty.
The Jewish immigrants not only did not own hardly any of the land at all, but never even tried to pay for what land they occupied. The Arab refugees are the legal owners of almost all of Israel.

WHICH Treaty of Sevres did you read?

British Mandate for Palestine

Main article: British Mandate of Palestine

The three principles of the British Balfour Declaration regarding Palestine were adopted in the Treaty of Sèvres:

ARTICLE 95: The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on 2 November 1917 by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

Treaty of Sèvres - Wikipedia


Where does is it mention in that Treaty that:

<<The British Mandate for Palestine came from the Treaty of Sevres, which is very clear in that it was the Muslim Arabs who were being given independence and sovereignty in Palestine, not the Jewish People.>>>

You obviously have never read the Treaty of Severe.
It clearly says the inhabitants were to be given independent sovereignty, and that Jews were only to be allowed facilitated immigration to a local homeland INSIDE of Palestine, which was to be ruled by the native Arabs.

{...
ARTICLE 95.


The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
...}

Section I, Articles 1 - 260 - World War I Document Archive

There is no way to even remotely interpret the Treaty of Sevres as giving Jewish immigrants sovereignty over the native Arab majority.
It clearly says the civil rights of non-Jews in Palestine were not to be infringed.
That means the native Arab Majority was to have sovereignty, not the immigrant Jewish minority.

I read it very clearly.

Palestine is a region, named by the Romans to make the Jewish Nation forget their homeland. It did not work and Jews continued to live on the land through the Romans, the Byzantine, the Muslims (Arabs), Crusaders and the Ottoman invasion and conquest during all of those 2000 since the Roman invasion.

You may try to make the Arabs the native people of the land all you like. They totally do not agree with you as they will tell you that their native land is called the Arabian Peninsula.

You seem to want to understand only what you wish to understand out of the Mandate for Palestine. Or any of the other three Mandates.

So be it.

Denialism is a region of the mind most preferred by those who reject the Jewish Nation/People's right to sovereignty on their own Ancient Land.

Totally and completely wrong!
Palestine was named after the Philistine and Phoenician city states, and existed hundreds of years berfore the Hebrew invasion around 1000 BC.
It is NOT at all the Hebrew homeland, and their massacre of Canaanites like at Jericho, deny them having any right to the region at all. Not only did the Hebrew leave when the Romans forced them out, but previously the Assyrian and Babylonians got fed up and made them leave as well. Later the Crusaders also wiped them out, and it was only the Moslem protection that allowed some Jews to return. But in 1900, the population was only about 5% Jewish in all of Palestine. Even in Jerusalem the majority was always Muslim Arab.

And only an ignorant person would say that Arabs are from the Arabian peninsula or that the Palestinan Arabs came from there. Anyone who knows any history at all know that the Arab in the Arabian Peninsula came from Palestine, and that the Palestinians, like the Canaanites, Akkadians, Amorites, Urites, Philistine, Phoenicians, Nabatians, Chaldeans, etc., all predated the Arabian Peninsula and are the original Palestine natives.
The ONLY thing they got from the Arabian Peninsula was the unified language of Arabic.

It is not at all hard to understand the British Mandate for Palestine.
Since you clearly do not understand it, try reading the Churchill White Paper of 1922, that was intended to make most clear.

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922
{...
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 favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917.

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." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' 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 upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national 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.

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 are 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, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.

During the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community, now numbering 80,000
...}

The Arabs DO come from Arabia, and they came not only in the 7th century, but only fairly recently as well, after Zionist Jews built up the country and made it prosperous. At least you admit that the Jews used to live in Judea/ Israel, many others deny us even THAT, despite the overwhelming evidence. You are right when you say we were forced out by the Romans--after no less than 3 rebellions for our freedom. The Arch of Titus in Italy is evidence of that. HaTikva is Israel's national anthem for a reason--please google the translation of it. (The melody is beautiful as well.) The Canaanites are no longer in existence. Between us and the Palestinian Arabs, WE are the indigenous ppl of that land.

 

[Rigby5]

That is ridiculous.
Local autonomy means that Jews can run their own villages and cities.
Local autonomy absolutely forbids sovereignty.
Local autonomy is the exact opposite of sovereignty.

Hmmm. Bummer for Syria and Lebanon then. Since the exact same wording was used in the French Mandate. So if the locals in Syria and Lebanon are prohibited from sovereignty all over the Mandated territories -- who gets it?!

And no it is not at all odd that the UN created Israel in 1949, because by 1949...

Um. I didn't say that the UN created Israel. It didn't. I said the UN, the international community, most nations, RECOGNIZED Israel. How could they have done that if the Jewish people are PROHIBITED from having any kind of sovereignty?

Palestine absolutely is NOT at all any historic Jewish territory. The Hebrew tribes did not invade until around 1000 BC, they were never the majority, and they gave up any right to rule by abusing and massacring natives, like the Canaanites at Jericho.
They were continually defeated and driven out by the Assyrians, Babylonians, Romans, and Crusaders.
They only ruled for a few hundred years, and their last time in power was actually as a puppet for the Romans.
For example, Herod was a convert and not really Jewish.
Jews are not even supposed to be going back to Jerusalem until the Messiah comes according to Judaism.
So the only Zionists are not even Jewish because they have to be secular atheists.

There are so many confusing and contradictory statements here, I don't even know where to go with this.

Let's start at ground zero. What is the criteria for self-determination and sovereignty over a particular piece of land?

History? Invasion? Majority? Right to rule? No abuse or massacre? Defeat? Length of rule? Length of time since rule was removed? Converts? Being "real"? Religious precepts? Secularism?

Seriously, dude, align your duckies and get back to me.

There are many possible criteria for self determination, but Israel fails them all.
As far as history, Jews only ruled small parts of Palestine for a few hundred years, but even that was thousands of years ago, so has no validity at all.
Invasion means the Hebrew tribes were not native, so that counts against them having sovereignty.
Jews were never the majority, and majority is always the main aspect of sovereignty.
No one gave Jews right to rule by treaty, as the British did to the Arabs for helping in WWI.
Anyone who commit atrocities, like the Hebrew massacre of Canaanites in Jericho, or the Arab at Dier Yassin, forfeits any right to sovereignty they might have had.
Defeat is not the reason one loses the right to sovereignty, but the fact the Jews were defeated and kicked out so many times in an indicator that they were abrasive and difficult for some reasons. And the fact they were then hardly ever in the Land of Canaan, cuts out any credibility of any claim.
The only reason Jews claim ownership of Palestine is religious. The Promised Land and Chosen People. So if one does not believe in and follow Judaism, which says to now wait for the coming of the Messiah, then there is no basis for a claim at all.

 

[Rigby5]

The British Mandate for Palestine came from the Treaty of Sevres, which is very clear in that it was the Muslim Arabs who were being given independence and sovereignty in Palestine, not the Jewish People. In fact, the Jews were almost all immigrants, so a quota was established so that they would not immigrate in too large of numbers and cause problems.
But the problem was that too many did immigrate illegally, and they brought arms and trained veterans, who then started massacring Arab villages, like Dier Yassin.

It is true that it was decided that Jews did need protection, but it was NEVER intended to allow Jews to at all have any role in governing the country. They were only supposed to be involved in local government.

And YES, land ownership most certainly DOES have to do with sovereignty.
It is a basic and long standing legal principle that land ownership is the basis for sovereignty.
That is why in the US originally, only land owners could vote.
Land ownership is one of the main ways you determine who is native and who have native rights and sovereignty.
The Jewish immigrants not only did not own hardly any of the land at all, but never even tried to pay for what land they occupied. The Arab refugees are the legal owners of almost all of Israel.

WHICH Treaty of Sevres did you read?

British Mandate for Palestine

Main article: British Mandate of Palestine

The three principles of the British Balfour Declaration regarding Palestine were adopted in the Treaty of Sèvres:

ARTICLE 95: The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on 2 November 1917 by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

Treaty of Sèvres - Wikipedia


Where does is it mention in that Treaty that:

<<The British Mandate for Palestine came from the Treaty of Sevres, which is very clear in that it was the Muslim Arabs who were being given independence and sovereignty in Palestine, not the Jewish People.>>>

You obviously have never read the Treaty of Severe.
It clearly says the inhabitants were to be given independent sovereignty, and that Jews were only to be allowed facilitated immigration to a local homeland INSIDE of Palestine, which was to be ruled by the native Arabs.

{...
ARTICLE 95.


The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
...}

Section I, Articles 1 - 260 - World War I Document Archive

There is no way to even remotely interpret the Treaty of Sevres as giving Jewish immigrants sovereignty over the native Arab majority.
It clearly says the civil rights of non-Jews in Palestine were not to be infringed.
That means the native Arab Majority was to have sovereignty, not the immigrant Jewish minority.

I read it very clearly.

Palestine is a region, named by the Romans to make the Jewish Nation forget their homeland. It did not work and Jews continued to live on the land through the Romans, the Byzantine, the Muslims (Arabs), Crusaders and the Ottoman invasion and conquest during all of those 2000 since the Roman invasion.

You may try to make the Arabs the native people of the land all you like. They totally do not agree with you as they will tell you that their native land is called the Arabian Peninsula.

You seem to want to understand only what you wish to understand out of the Mandate for Palestine. Or any of the other three Mandates.

So be it.

Denialism is a region of the mind most preferred by those who reject the Jewish Nation/People's right to sovereignty on their own Ancient Land.

Totally and completely wrong!
Palestine was named after the Philistine and Phoenician city states, and existed hundreds of years berfore the Hebrew invasion around 1000 BC.
It is NOT at all the Hebrew homeland, and their massacre of Canaanites like at Jericho, deny them having any right to the region at all. Not only did the Hebrew leave when the Romans forced them out, but previously the Assyrian and Babylonians got fed up and made them leave as well. Later the Crusaders also wiped them out, and it was only the Moslem protection that allowed some Jews to return. But in 1900, the population was only about 5% Jewish in all of Palestine. Even in Jerusalem the majority was always Muslim Arab.

And only an ignorant person would say that Arabs are from the Arabian peninsula or that the Palestinan Arabs came from there. Anyone who knows any history at all know that the Arab in the Arabian Peninsula came from Palestine, and that the Palestinians, like the Canaanites, Akkadians, Amorites, Urites, Philistine, Phoenicians, Nabatians, Chaldeans, etc., all predated the Arabian Peninsula and are the original Palestine natives.
The ONLY thing they got from the Arabian Peninsula was the unified language of Arabic.

It is not at all hard to understand the British Mandate for Palestine.
Since you clearly do not understand it, try reading the Churchill White Paper of 1922, that was intended to make most clear.

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922
{...
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 favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917.

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." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' 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 upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national 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.

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 are 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, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.

During the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community, now numbering 80,000
...}

The Arabs DO come from Arabia, and they came not only in the 7th century, but only fairly recently as well, after Zionist Jews built up the country and made it prosperous. At least you admit that the Jews used to live in Judea/ Israel, many others deny us even THAT, despite the overwhelming evidence. You are right when you say we were forced out by the Romans--after no less than 3 rebellions for our freedom. The Arch of Titus in Italy is evidence of that. HaTikva is Israel's national anthem for a reason--please google the translation of it. (The melody is beautiful as well.) The Canaanites are no longer in existence. Between us and the Palestinian Arabs, WE are the indigenous ppl of that land.

Wrong. Totally and completely wrong.
The Canaanites were Arab, (and actually all Semitic people like Hebrew are Arabs), and the Canaanites were in the Land of Canaan at least back to 8,000 BC. That is well before any Canaanites or other Arabs went to the Arabian Peninsula.

And what you claim about Arabs being recent immigrants is just silly.
Just look at the 1920 census data, and you see that back before the region was very prosperous, there were only 63,000 Jews out of a population of about 2 million. So clearly it was an Arab country completely before the Jewish immigration around WWII. And even with that Jewish immigration, the population was only about a third Jewish, and it is still only about a third Jewish.

When the Romans, Babylonians, Assyrians kicked the Jews out, Palestine was not deserted. The population remained about the same. That is because the Jews were never the majority anywhere in Palestine.
And yes, the Canaanites, Akkadians, Chaldeans, Philistines, Phoenicians, Urites, Amorites, Nabatians, etc., most certainly are in existence. They never left.

Jews are NOT the natives of Palestine. It is clear that before going to Egypt, they lived in the Sinai, and that is where they are native to.

 

[Sixties Fan]

WHICH Treaty of Sevres did you read?

British Mandate for Palestine

Main article: British Mandate of Palestine

The three principles of the British Balfour Declaration regarding Palestine were adopted in the Treaty of Sèvres:

ARTICLE 95: The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on 2 November 1917 by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

Treaty of Sèvres - Wikipedia


Where does is it mention in that Treaty that:

<<The British Mandate for Palestine came from the Treaty of Sevres, which is very clear in that it was the Muslim Arabs who were being given independence and sovereignty in Palestine, not the Jewish People.>>>

You obviously have never read the Treaty of Severe.
It clearly says the inhabitants were to be given independent sovereignty, and that Jews were only to be allowed facilitated immigration to a local homeland INSIDE of Palestine, which was to be ruled by the native Arabs.

{...
ARTICLE 95.


The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
...}

Section I, Articles 1 - 260 - World War I Document Archive

There is no way to even remotely interpret the Treaty of Sevres as giving Jewish immigrants sovereignty over the native Arab majority.
It clearly says the civil rights of non-Jews in Palestine were not to be infringed.
That means the native Arab Majority was to have sovereignty, not the immigrant Jewish minority.

I read it very clearly.

Palestine is a region, named by the Romans to make the Jewish Nation forget their homeland. It did not work and Jews continued to live on the land through the Romans, the Byzantine, the Muslims (Arabs), Crusaders and the Ottoman invasion and conquest during all of those 2000 since the Roman invasion.

You may try to make the Arabs the native people of the land all you like. They totally do not agree with you as they will tell you that their native land is called the Arabian Peninsula.

You seem to want to understand only what you wish to understand out of the Mandate for Palestine. Or any of the other three Mandates.

So be it.

Denialism is a region of the mind most preferred by those who reject the Jewish Nation/People's right to sovereignty on their own Ancient Land.

Totally and completely wrong!
Palestine was named after the Philistine and Phoenician city states, and existed hundreds of years berfore the Hebrew invasion around 1000 BC.
It is NOT at all the Hebrew homeland, and their massacre of Canaanites like at Jericho, deny them having any right to the region at all. Not only did the Hebrew leave when the Romans forced them out, but previously the Assyrian and Babylonians got fed up and made them leave as well. Later the Crusaders also wiped them out, and it was only the Moslem protection that allowed some Jews to return. But in 1900, the population was only about 5% Jewish in all of Palestine. Even in Jerusalem the majority was always Muslim Arab.

And only an ignorant person would say that Arabs are from the Arabian peninsula or that the Palestinan Arabs came from there. Anyone who knows any history at all know that the Arab in the Arabian Peninsula came from Palestine, and that the Palestinians, like the Canaanites, Akkadians, Amorites, Urites, Philistine, Phoenicians, Nabatians, Chaldeans, etc., all predated the Arabian Peninsula and are the original Palestine natives.
The ONLY thing they got from the Arabian Peninsula was the unified language of Arabic.

It is not at all hard to understand the British Mandate for Palestine.
Since you clearly do not understand it, try reading the Churchill White Paper of 1922, that was intended to make most clear.

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922
{...
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 favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917.

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." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' 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 upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national 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.

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 are 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, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.

During the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community, now numbering 80,000
...}

The Arabs DO come from Arabia, and they came not only in the 7th century, but only fairly recently as well, after Zionist Jews built up the country and made it prosperous. At least you admit that the Jews used to live in Judea/ Israel, many others deny us even THAT, despite the overwhelming evidence. You are right when you say we were forced out by the Romans--after no less than 3 rebellions for our freedom. The Arch of Titus in Italy is evidence of that. HaTikva is Israel's national anthem for a reason--please google the translation of it. (The melody is beautiful as well.) The Canaanites are no longer in existence. Between us and the Palestinian Arabs, WE are the indigenous ppl of that land.

Wrong. Totally and completely wrong.
The Canaanites were Arab, (and actually all Semitic people like Hebrew are Arabs), and the Canaanites were in the Land of Canaan at least back to 8,000 BC. That is well before any Canaanites or other Arabs went to the Arabian Peninsula.

And what you claim about Arabs being recent immigrants is just silly.
Just look at the 1920 census data, and you see that back before the region was very prosperous, there were only 63,000 Jews out of a population of about 2 million. So clearly it was an Arab country completely before the Jewish immigration around WWII. And even with that Jewish immigration, the population was only about a third Jewish, and it is still only about a third Jewish.

When the Romans, Babylonians, Assyrians kicked the Jews out, Palestine was not deserted. The population remained about the same. That is because the Jews were never the majority anywhere in Palestine.
And yes, the Canaanites, Akkadians, Chaldeans, Philistines, Phoenicians, Urites, Amorites, Nabatians, etc., most certainly are in existence. They never left.

Jews are NOT the natives of Palestine. It is clear that before going to Egypt, they lived in the Sinai, and that is where they are native to.

"The Right to Destroy Jewish History"

At least the Muslims Arabs are trying.....and trying.....and trying......

Palestinian fabrication: Canaanites were Arabs - Video

 

[Sixties Fan]

The British Mandate for Palestine came from the Treaty of Sevres, which is very clear in that it was the Muslim Arabs who were being given independence and sovereignty in Palestine, not the Jewish People. In fact, the Jews were almost all immigrants, so a quota was established so that they would not immigrate in too large of numbers and cause problems.
But the problem was that too many did immigrate illegally, and they brought arms and trained veterans, who then started massacring Arab villages, like Dier Yassin.

It is true that it was decided that Jews did need protection, but it was NEVER intended to allow Jews to at all have any role in governing the country. They were only supposed to be involved in local government.

And YES, land ownership most certainly DOES have to do with sovereignty.
It is a basic and long standing legal principle that land ownership is the basis for sovereignty.
That is why in the US originally, only land owners could vote.
Land ownership is one of the main ways you determine who is native and who have native rights and sovereignty.
The Jewish immigrants not only did not own hardly any of the land at all, but never even tried to pay for what land they occupied. The Arab refugees are the legal owners of almost all of Israel.

WHICH Treaty of Sevres did you read?

British Mandate for Palestine

Main article: British Mandate of Palestine

The three principles of the British Balfour Declaration regarding Palestine were adopted in the Treaty of Sèvres:

ARTICLE 95: The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on 2 November 1917 by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

Treaty of Sèvres - Wikipedia


Where does is it mention in that Treaty that:

<<The British Mandate for Palestine came from the Treaty of Sevres, which is very clear in that it was the Muslim Arabs who were being given independence and sovereignty in Palestine, not the Jewish People.>>>

You obviously have never read the Treaty of Severe.
It clearly says the inhabitants were to be given independent sovereignty, and that Jews were only to be allowed facilitated immigration to a local homeland INSIDE of Palestine, which was to be ruled by the native Arabs.

{...
ARTICLE 95.


The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
...}

Section I, Articles 1 - 260 - World War I Document Archive

There is no way to even remotely interpret the Treaty of Sevres as giving Jewish immigrants sovereignty over the native Arab majority.
It clearly says the civil rights of non-Jews in Palestine were not to be infringed.
That means the native Arab Majority was to have sovereignty, not the immigrant Jewish minority.

I read it very clearly.

Palestine is a region, named by the Romans to make the Jewish Nation forget their homeland. It did not work and Jews continued to live on the land through the Romans, the Byzantine, the Muslims (Arabs), Crusaders and the Ottoman invasion and conquest during all of those 2000 since the Roman invasion.

You may try to make the Arabs the native people of the land all you like. They totally do not agree with you as they will tell you that their native land is called the Arabian Peninsula.

You seem to want to understand only what you wish to understand out of the Mandate for Palestine. Or any of the other three Mandates.

So be it.

Denialism is a region of the mind most preferred by those who reject the Jewish Nation/People's right to sovereignty on their own Ancient Land.

Totally and completely wrong!
Palestine was named after the Philistine and Phoenician city states, and existed hundreds of years berfore the Hebrew invasion around 1000 BC.
It is NOT at all the Hebrew homeland, and their massacre of Canaanites like at Jericho, deny them having any right to the region at all. Not only did the Hebrew leave when the Romans forced them out, but previously the Assyrian and Babylonians got fed up and made them leave as well. Later the Crusaders also wiped them out, and it was only the Moslem protection that allowed some Jews to return. But in 1900, the population was only about 5% Jewish in all of Palestine. Even in Jerusalem the majority was always Muslim Arab.

And only an ignorant person would say that Arabs are from the Arabian peninsula or that the Palestinan Arabs came from there. Anyone who knows any history at all know that the Arab in the Arabian Peninsula came from Palestine, and that the Palestinians, like the Canaanites, Akkadians, Amorites, Urites, Philistine, Phoenicians, Nabatians, Chaldeans, etc., all predated the Arabian Peninsula and are the original Palestine natives.
The ONLY thing they got from the Arabian Peninsula was the unified language of Arabic.

It is not at all hard to understand the British Mandate for Palestine.
Since you clearly do not understand it, try reading the Churchill White Paper of 1922, that was intended to make most clear.

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of June 1922
{...
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 favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917.

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." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' 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 upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national 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.

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 are 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, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.

During the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community, now numbering 80,000
...}

The Arabs DO come from Arabia, and they came not only in the 7th century, but only fairly recently as well, after Zionist Jews built up the country and made it prosperous. At least you admit that the Jews used to live in Judea/ Israel, many others deny us even THAT, despite the overwhelming evidence. You are right when you say we were forced out by the Romans--after no less than 3 rebellions for our freedom. The Arch of Titus in Italy is evidence of that. HaTikva is Israel's national anthem for a reason--please google the translation of it. (The melody is beautiful as well.) The Canaanites are no longer in existence. Between us and the Palestinian Arabs, WE are the indigenous ppl of that land.

The Arabs have been mostly present in the Land of Israel from the 7th century CE on. The Husseini clan came around the 10th Century CE.
Not all Jews were taken to Rome after the revolts, anymore than "all" Israelites were taken to Babylon centuries before.

Many were still living there, they simply could not go into Jerusalem to keep the Jews from revolting again (it was an Arab Muslim who allowed Jews to live in Jerusalem again in the 7th Century CE)

The Canaanites did not disappear. They eventually became part of the Nation of Israel.

The Canaanite tribes identity, and the Phillistines as well, may have disappeared, but they did remain in the area becoming part of Israel or any other Nation at the time.

The first time I have read of Arabs in the Land of Israel (Canaan),was during the Roman times, when that Empire used one tribe or another, or mercenary groups, to help the Romans put down the Jewish revolts all the way up to Bar Kochba.
I have not found any mention of them afterwards.

The Jewish People/Nation created a Nation 3000 years ago, and have remained on it all the way to the present.

Arabs, once Islam was created in Arabia, came to the land, and all other lands as invaders from the 7th century CE on and only became an "Arab Nation' because of Muhammad and his creation of Islam. They are indigenous of Arabia and no other place, just as Copts are indigenous of Egypt and the Yazidis are indigenous of Mesopotamia (Iraq), or the Berbers are indigenous of Morocco.

The Jewish People, as recorded by many Nations' historical documents, are indigenous of the Land of Israel (Ancient Canaan).

Do find a mention of Arab Palestinians in any historical document or drawing, etc. before 2000 years ago as a Nation. Or the mention of Arab Palestinians as a Nation after the 7th Century CE.

Some Muslim Arabs, like the ones who have been calling themselves Palestinians ONLY since 1964, wish to change the history in order to defeat the Jews with lies........that is their problem, not ours.

1400 years of the Arabs "living" anywhere else in the world but Arabia makes them neither Indigenous, nor Native of any of the places they conquered anymore than Europeans can be considered Indigenous or Natives of the lands they conquered after 1492 in the "New World".

 

[Shusha]

There are many possible criteria for self determination, but Israel fails them all.

Cool. List them then, in concrete, objective terms.

A peoples are eligible for sovereignty IF....

A peoples are prohibited from sovereignty IF...