Do Palestinians Have the Right to Defend Themselves?

[Billo_Really]

Not what you claimed dildo, so try again. This time go back to your original post and see that you stated the Germans blamed the Jews for all the problems in Palestine.

Troll boy keeps doing his troll Schick.

Now you're claiming the Nazis cared about what was happening in Palestine?

Can you get anymore irrational and stupid?

 

[Phoenall]

Not what you claimed dildo, so try again. This time go back to your original post and see that you stated the Germans blamed the Jews for all the problems in Palestine.

Troll boy keeps doing his troll Schick.

Now you're claiming the Nazis cared about what was happening in Palestine?

Can you get anymore irrational and stupid?

That was your claim dildo so produce the link..........................


You are just too easy to prove to be a complete morn these days

 

[P F Tinmore]

Remember, The Palestinians have no borders or demarcations to rely upon. The Israelis do.

You have that backwards.

Palestine has international borders.

Israel is defined by armistice lines.

Then you base the rest of your post of false premise.

No, YOU have that wrong. Israel has international boundaries with Egypt and Jordan. That's just a fact. There's no going around that.

"Then you base the rest of your post of false premise"
This is what you post when you have no rebuttal. What exactly did he post that was based on false premise?

Israel claims borders on Palestinian land.

Interesting legal concept.

Again Mandate of Palestine land as there was never a nation of Palestine until 1988.

And we are still waiting for you to post the link that says otherwise. Who made the borders, what person acting on behalf of Palestine signed the papers and where are the treaties

Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them on her behalf, in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.

Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937

Nope it very clearly states that the nationality law was to give the inhabitants the citizenship of the mandatory power. It never at any time gave the basis for a nation or a nationality based on a nation

Link?

 

[Phoenall]

No, YOU have that wrong. Israel has international boundaries with Egypt and Jordan. That's just a fact. There's no going around that.

"Then you base the rest of your post of false premise"
This is what you post when you have no rebuttal. What exactly did he post that was based on false premise?

Israel claims borders on Palestinian land.

Interesting legal concept.

Again Mandate of Palestine land as there was never a nation of Palestine until 1988.

And we are still waiting for you to post the link that says otherwise. Who made the borders, what person acting on behalf of Palestine signed the papers and where are the treaties

Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them on her behalf, in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.

Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937

Nope it very clearly states that the nationality law was to give the inhabitants the citizenship of the mandatory power. It never at any time gave the basis for a nation or a nationality based on a nation

Link?

The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate


ART. 7.
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.


The administration, or mandatory power, not the nation of palestine

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel claims borders on Palestinian land.

Interesting legal concept.

Again Mandate of Palestine land as there was never a nation of Palestine until 1988.

And we are still waiting for you to post the link that says otherwise. Who made the borders, what person acting on behalf of Palestine signed the papers and where are the treaties

Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them on her behalf, in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.

Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937

Nope it very clearly states that the nationality law was to give the inhabitants the citizenship of the mandatory power. It never at any time gave the basis for a nation or a nationality based on a nation

Link?

The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate


ART. 7.
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.


The administration, or mandatory power, not the nation of palestine

Where does that say what you said?

 

[Phoenall]

Again Mandate of Palestine land as there was never a nation of Palestine until 1988.

And we are still waiting for you to post the link that says otherwise. Who made the borders, what person acting on behalf of Palestine signed the papers and where are the treaties

Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them on her behalf, in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.

Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937

Nope it very clearly states that the nationality law was to give the inhabitants the citizenship of the mandatory power. It never at any time gave the basis for a nation or a nationality based on a nation

Link?

The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate


ART. 7.
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.


The administration, or mandatory power, not the nation of palestine

Where does that say what you said?

The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law.


So the British administration was responsible for enacting a British Palestine nationality law. It was not a Palestinian nationality law

 

[RoccoR]

Again Mandate of Palestine land as there was never a nation of Palestine until 1988.

And we are still waiting for you to post the link that says otherwise. Who made the borders, what person acting on behalf of Palestine signed the papers and where are the treaties

Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them on her behalf, in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.

Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937

Nope it very clearly states that the nationality law was to give the inhabitants the citizenship of the mandatory power. It never at any time gave the basis for a nation or a nationality based on a nation

Link?

The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate
ART. 7.
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
The administration, or mandatory power, not the nation of palestine

Where does that say what you said?

(COMMENT)

Everything, having to do with the governance of the territory, was defined relative to the application of the Mandate (The "MANDATE" means the Mandate for Palestine which was confirmed, and the terms of which were defined by the Council of the League of Nations on the 24th day of July, 1922) . Other than that defined by the Allied Powers, there was no other meaning given to "Palestine."

√ The Palestine Legislative Council Election Order, 1922.

For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--

(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.

(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.
​

√ The Palestine Order in Council, 1922

The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.

WHEREAS the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them;

11.--(1) The High Commissioner may, with the approval of a Secretary of State, by Proclamation divide Palestine into administrative divisions or districts in such manner and with such subdivisions as may be convenient for purposes of administration describing the boundaries thereof and assigning names thereto.​

Any attempt to suggest that the "Administration of Palestine" or the "Government of Palestine" was any entity other than Britain (or that defined by the Allied Powers), is misinformation. Any attempt to suggest that "Palestine" or "Palestinian Citizenship" inferred or implies any special meaning of sovereignty or territorial integrity (other than explicitly cited by the Council), is misinformation. Any attempt to suggest that the use of the short-title "Palestine" attaches any significants other that the meaning --- "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies" --- is misinformation.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them on her behalf, in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.

Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937

Nope it very clearly states that the nationality law was to give the inhabitants the citizenship of the mandatory power. It never at any time gave the basis for a nation or a nationality based on a nation

Link?

The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate
ART. 7.
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
The administration, or mandatory power, not the nation of palestine

Where does that say what you said?

(COMMENT)

Everything, having to do with the governance of the territory, was defined relative to the application of the Mandate (The "MANDATE" means the Mandate for Palestine which was confirmed, and the terms of which were defined by the Council of the League of Nations on the 24th day of July, 1922) . Other than that defined by the Allied Powers, there was no other meaning given to "Palestine."

√ The Palestine Legislative Council Election Order, 1922.

For the purposes of this Order and pending the introduction of an Order in Council regulating Palestinian citizenship, the following persons shall be deemed to be Palestinian citizens:--

(a)Turkish subjects habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the date of commencement of this Order.

(b)All persons of other than Turkish nationality habitually resident in the territory of Palestine at the said date, who shall within two calendar months of the said date make application for Palestinian citizenship in such form and before such officer as may be prescribed by the High Commissioner.
​

√ The Palestine Order in Council, 1922

The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine.

WHEREAS the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them;

11.--(1) The High Commissioner may, with the approval of a Secretary of State, by Proclamation divide Palestine into administrative divisions or districts in such manner and with such subdivisions as may be convenient for purposes of administration describing the boundaries thereof and assigning names thereto.​

Any attempt to suggest that the "Administration of Palestine" or the "Government of Palestine" was any entity other than Britain (or that defined by the Allied Powers), is misinformation. Any attempt to suggest that "Palestine" or "Palestinian Citizenship" inferred or implies any special meaning of sovereignty or territorial integrity (other than explicitly cited by the Council), is misinformation. Any attempt to suggest that the use of the short-title "Palestine" attaches any significants other that the meaning --- "the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies" --- is misinformation.

Most Respectfully,
R

Mandate for Palestine.

Not

Mandate is Palestine.

 

[montelatici]

Israel claims borders on Palestinian land.

Interesting legal concept.

Again Mandate of Palestine land as there was never a nation of Palestine until 1988.

And we are still waiting for you to post the link that says otherwise. Who made the borders, what person acting on behalf of Palestine signed the papers and where are the treaties

Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them on her behalf, in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity.

Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937

Nope it very clearly states that the nationality law was to give the inhabitants the citizenship of the mandatory power. It never at any time gave the basis for a nation or a nationality based on a nation

Link?

The Avalon Project The Palestine Mandate


ART. 7.
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.


The administration, or mandatory power, not the nation of palestine

How is it that you are always wrong. A broken clock is more accurate than you are.

REPORT
BY HIS BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT​

TO THE COUNCIL OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS
ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF​

PALESTINE AND TRANSJORDAN
FOR THE YEAR
1925
​

3.Q. What measures have been taken to bring the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will safeguard the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion? What are the effects of these measures?

A. The Palestinian Citizenship Order in Council which was made in August, 1925, provides for the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by persons habitually resident in the country who were Ottoman subjects, and persons who were foreign subjects and take up permanent residence.

Mandate for Palestine - Report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations 31 December 1925

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

When that distinction really plays an important role in the discussion, be sure to let me know.

Mandate for Palestine.

Not

Mandate is Palestine.

(COMMENT)

While it is true, to a degree, I think the distinction is lost on you. Because (between 1922 and 1948) everything that constitutes "Palestine," to include the geographic limits, was either specified in the Mandate, or defined by the application of the Mandate, or in relation to the Mandate.

I think I once heard you say (something to the effect) that when the Mandate was gone, Palestine remained. That is a bit naive and certainly not very correct. The very definition of the territory as defined by the Allied Powers is based on:

• 
  "The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."

If the Mandate terminated, while the physical ground would remain, it would not technically be defined as "Palestine." Palestine, is defined by the Allied Powers. It would be an undefined region of the Greater Levant. The definition would be:

"The limits of this Order are the territories to which the nothing applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."​

In practical reality, we refer to this as a necessary dependency. In legalese, changes in the text from "for" to "is" are extremely important, only to the extent that the difference is recognizable and can be articulate. In your case --- much like your failure to understand the origin of the "civil and religious' rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" and where that languages was first coined (HINT: everything that has was based on the source, are deemed null and void by the Palestinians); your understanding of who decided and when, the boundaries of Palestine needed to be defined:

Article I

The Arab State and Palestine in all their relations and undertakings shall be controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in their respective territories.​

Article II

Immediately following the completion of the deliberations of the Peace Conference, the definite boundaries between the Arab State and Palestine shall be determined by a Commission to be agreed upon by the parties hereto. SOURCE: TEXT OF THE FAISAL-WEIZMANN AGREEMENT ​

​

While some time ago, we had a deep discussion about all this. Some things are stranger than fiction.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

Just curious as to under whose authority was the Kingdom of Hejaz operating with respect to the Palestinians. Was he speaking for the Palestinian Muslims or the Palestinian Christians, who made up 93% of the population of Palestine? I don't recall that the Palestine Arab Congress ever agreed for this self appointed Bedouin King to negotiate on the Palestinian's behalf, in fact, the Palestinians were far more likely to give Syria that right, given the British refusal to recognize the representative body of 93% of the population.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Just curious as to under whose authority was the Kingdom of Hejaz operating with respect to the Palestinians. Was he speaking for the Palestinian Muslims or the Palestinian Christians, who made up 93% of the population of Palestine? I don't recall that the Palestine Arab Congress ever agreed for this self appointed Bedouin King to negotiate on the Palestinian's behalf, in fact, the Palestinians were far more likely to give Syria that right, given the British refusal to recognize the representative body of 93% of the population.

That is the root of the problem.

Palestinians have always had other people making decisions for them who did not have their best interest in mind.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Actually, that is a good (very good) question. The answer is related to Post #544 (in particular the implications on the map) --- and --- montelatici's Post #529 --- the mistaken belief that all the Arabs were aligned with COL TE Lawrence and the allied Arab Revolt --- about which Arabs were allied with the EEF (the British Army Egyptian Expeditionary Force commanded by General Sir Edmund Allenby). Remember, COL Lawrence, as the military advisor from the Arab Bureau, organized the Arab Irregular Forces (AIF) under the command of Emir Faisal (son of Sharif Hussein bin Ali, GCB, of Mecca and King of the Hejaz) into a Proxy Warfare Element and smaller asymmetric units that helped pin down a sizable Ottoman/Turk element of the 7th Army.

​

Just curious as to under whose authority was the Kingdom of Hejaz operating with respect to the Palestinians. Was he speaking for the Palestinian Muslims or the Palestinian Christians, who made up 93% of the population of Palestine? I don't recall that the Palestine Arab Congress ever agreed for this self appointed Bedouin King to negotiate on the Palestinian's behalf, in fact, the Palestinians were far more likely to give Syria that right, given the British refusal to recognize the representative body of 93% of the population.

(COMMENT)

Prince Faisal and his forces, started in central Sinai moved the Arab Revolt from Yanbu - north along the central supply line and railway; in a hop'n'skip manner. Once it engage and won at Aqaba, the AIF hopped and skipped north to Damascus and toward Aleppo. Except for very small and short sorties, the AIF stayed on the East Side of the Jordan River and Dead Sea. Elements of the EEF (General Allenby's Forces) stayed almost exclusively on the West Bank engaging Ottoman Army Element including Arab units with the order of battle.

"There were also Arab and Bedouin volunteers, regional forces who would be fighting against the occupying force, who supported the campaign against the British to capture the Suez Canal. It is classified as volunteerism for Army, however, did not provide a substantial support for the efforts of the Army. These volunteers were not trained well (not within the Ottoman system), it is true that they were defenders of their own land (comparable to Armenian fedayi), most of the Arab and Bedouin volunteers were motivated by financial gains." SOURCE: Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Caliphate​

​

The Arabs of the Arab Revolt and COL Lawrence fame, did not come from the from Gaza to Megiddo. In fact, in the British EEF Movement to contact in Gaza, took three separate battles to secure area before the main body could proceed north.

In the hierarchy within the Arab Community on the side of the Allied Powers, Emir Faisal was the Senior Arab in protocol. Prince Faisal had been a representative for the City of Jeddah in the Ottoman parliament. The Joint British Army and Arab AIF assault --- successfully taking Damascus in October 1918, was a major huddle in the decision process that followed with the Ottoman Armistice of Mudros; and the surrender of all remaining garrisons in Hedjaz, Yemen, Syria, Mesopotamia, Tripolitania and Cyrenaica. When it came to post-Conflict Resolutions, negotiations and settlements, it seemed to the Allied Powers that the principle leader of the Arab community on the side of the Allies was Prince Faisal who concluded the Agreement for Arab-Jewish Cooperation, in which Faisal conditionally accepted the Balfour Declaration. It seemed the logical choice since there did not appear to be any other reasonable alternative. The Arabs to what the Allied Powers had defined as "Palestine;" did not appear to have contributed much to the liberation efforts in the region. However, the Bedouins and other Tribal entities of the Hejaz did actively contribute to the liberations efforts.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

With all of that Rocco, what does it mean? That some self appointed Bedouin king from deep in the Arabian desert had the right to make decisions for the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine? How many Palestinian (Arab) Jews participated in the battles against the Turks?

 

[Billo_Really]

That was your claim dildo so produce the link..........................


You are just too easy to prove to be a complete morn these days

Aw, the little troll, doing his little troll thing.

How sweet?

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Well, actually, you don't see many founding fathers of Israel that were born in Palestine.

I tried to make two points here:

• That Hussein bin Ali, GCB, Grand Sharif and Emir of Mecca (and ruler of Medina, capital of the al-Madinah Region); last of the Hashemite Sharifians, with Mecca being the birthplace of Muhammad (PBUH), and the site of the first revelation of the Quran (and Medina - where the final surahs of the Quran were revealed to the Prophet, called Medinan surahs); the two holiest cities in the religion of Islam; and Mecca being the former capital city of the Hejaz (now a capital of Makkah Province in Saudi Arabia); --- was not just any "self appointed Bedouin king from deep in the Arabian desert."

• That Hussein bin Ali, was a highly regarded by Shiite Muslim, and his sons, made themselves useful to the British Empire and were instrumental in initiating the Arab Revolt in 1916 against the Ottoman Empire; helping to pin-down Ottoman Forces that would have otherwise been free to attack the British Egyptian Expeditionary Forces.

With all of that Rocco, what does it mean? That some self appointed Bedouin king from deep in the Arabian desert had the right to make decisions for the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine? How many Palestinian (Arab) Jews participated in the battles against the Turks?

(COMMENT)

Just like the House of Saud went to work --- and out of all the potential leaders in the Court of Sheikhs --- became the House that unified the many tribes in Arabia. So it is that the House of Prince Ali, last King of Hejaz, attempted to expand the Hashemites by assisting in the liberation of the Middle Eastern Region from Ottoman sovereignty.

Sons in the House of Prince Ali, last King of Hejaz:

• Prince Abdullah, Emir (later King) of Transjordan
• Prince Faisal, (later King) of Iraq and Syria

In the open period of the Mandate, the Jewish Organizations mustered resources to secure the establishment of a Jewish National Home in ancient region of Palestine. The indigenous Arab population of Palestine, with a territorial history in the land for two millennia disapproved of the 1919 agreement between Emir Faisal and Chaim Weizmann pertaining to the individual "national aspirations" of the Arab and the Jewish. Additionally, the indigenous Arab Population --- which did not assist in the liberation effort, mistakenly felt that they should be awarded territorial concessions for nothing, and opposed the decision by the Allied Powers to start a resettlement project for the purpose of preserving and protecting the Jewish Culture from extinction. In the late 1970's the Arab Palestinians would adopt the mantra that such a move violated their natural and inalienable rights; although these rights did not exist at the time the Allied Powers made the decisions. They also viewed it as an infringement of assurances of independence given by the Allied Powers to Arab leaders in return for their support during the war. While it is a matter of record, that Prince Faisal did write (10 March 1921) to the Allied Powers through the British House of Commons on the issue of the Arabs entered the war on the side of the Allies with certain clear aims - unfulfilled by the Powers, it is NOT a case that the Arabs of Palestine had any legitimate claim. The Faisal Memo was submitted by General Hoddad Pasha (Hejaz Army) and delegated by His Royal Highness Emir Faisal --- it was fair in saying the Army of the Hejaz had a claim; but their was no associated effort by an Arab Army west of the Jordan River; it was a false claim. The outcome was mounting resistance to the Mandate by Palestinian Arabs, and the resort to an ever gradually escalating level of violence against the Jewish community; including the Arab creation of Palestinian Black Hand by Izz ad-Din al-Qassam (who would become the name sake martyr of the military wing and brigade of the same name in the Islamic Resistance Movement nearly 60 years later).

There is no question that there was a promise made to the Last King of the Hejaz concerning the Kingdoms owed the surviving sons. But there was no such promise made to the Arab west of the Jordan, because they made NO significant contribution in the liberation. And on the contrary, they actually created disturbances and disruption in public order for the Administration.

• In April, 1920, five Jews were killed and over two hundred injured in the first outbreak of anti-Zionist Arab violence.
• A year later, in May 1921, more serious attacks were make by Arabs on the Jews of Jaffa and of five rural settlements. On this occasion 47 Jews were killed and 146 wounded.

In separate reports, one by the Civil Administration and one by the Military Support Detachment, this commentary set the tone.

The demonstrators clashed with the police, and during the next few weeks other riots took place in Jaffa, Nablus, Haifa, and again in Jerusalem. In the course of these disorders, one policeman and 24 civilians were killed. The disturbances of 1933 differed from those of 1920, 1921 and 1929 in that they were directed not against the Jews but against the mandatory Government, which was accused of tilting the balance against the Arabs in its administration of the mandate.
​

Why did the "Bedouin king from deep in the Arabian desert had the right to make decisions?" Because they were the most civilized --- I suspect.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

When that distinction really plays an important role in the discussion, be sure to let me know.

Mandate for Palestine.

Not

Mandate is Palestine.

(COMMENT)

While it is true, to a degree, I think the distinction is lost on you. Because (between 1922 and 1948) everything that constitutes "Palestine," to include the geographic limits, was either specified in the Mandate, or defined by the application of the Mandate, or in relation to the Mandate.

I think I once heard you say (something to the effect) that when the Mandate was gone, Palestine remained. That is a bit naive and certainly not very correct. The very definition of the territory as defined by the Allied Powers is based on:

• 
  "The limits of this Order are the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."

If the Mandate terminated, while the physical ground would remain, it would not technically be defined as "Palestine." Palestine, is defined by the Allied Powers. It would be an undefined region of the Greater Levant. The definition would be:

"The limits of this Order are the territories to which the nothing applies, hereinafter described as Palestine."​

In practical reality, we refer to this as a necessary dependency. In legalese, changes in the text from "for" to "is" are extremely important, only to the extent that the difference is recognizable and can be articulate. In your case --- much like your failure to understand the origin of the "civil and religious' rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" and where that languages was first coined (HINT: everything that has was based on the source, are deemed null and void by the Palestinians); your understanding of who decided and when, the boundaries of Palestine needed to be defined:

Article I

The Arab State and Palestine in all their relations and undertakings shall be controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in their respective territories.​

Article II

Immediately following the completion of the deliberations of the Peace Conference, the definite boundaries between the Arab State and Palestine shall be determined by a Commission to be agreed upon by the parties hereto. SOURCE: TEXT OF THE FAISAL-WEIZMANN AGREEMENT ​

​

While some time ago, we had a deep discussion about all this. Some things are stranger than fiction.

Most Respectfully,
R

When that distinction really plays an important role in the discussion, be sure to let me know.​

Actually it is very relevant. It is said that:

The Mandate was Palestine. There was no Palestine.
The map of Palestine is the map of the Mandate. There was no Palestine.
There are no borders for Palestine. Those are the borders of the Mandate.
The "Arabs" were citizens of the Mandate not Palestine.

The conclusion is that since there was no Palestine and there were no Palestinians, that the territory was up for grabs.

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et al,

Well, actually, you don't see many founding fathers of Israel that were born in Palestine.

I tried to make two points here:

• That Hussein bin Ali, GCB, Grand Sharif and Emir of Mecca (and ruler of Medina, capital of the al-Madinah Region); last of the Hashemite Sharifians, with Mecca being the birthplace of Muhammad (PBUH), and the site of the first revelation of the Quran (and Medina - where the final surahs of the Quran were revealed to the Prophet, called Medinan surahs); the two holiest cities in the religion of Islam; and Mecca being the former capital city of the Hejaz (now a capital of Makkah Province in Saudi Arabia); --- was not just any "self appointed Bedouin king from deep in the Arabian desert."

• That Hussein bin Ali, was a highly regarded by Shiite Muslim, and his sons, made themselves useful to the British Empire and were instrumental in initiating the Arab Revolt in 1916 against the Ottoman Empire; helping to pin-down Ottoman Forces that would have otherwise been free to attack the British Egyptian Expeditionary Forces.

With all of that Rocco, what does it mean? That some self appointed Bedouin king from deep in the Arabian desert had the right to make decisions for the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine? How many Palestinian (Arab) Jews participated in the battles against the Turks?

(COMMENT)

Just like the House of Saud went to work --- and out of all the potential leaders in the Court of Sheikhs --- became the House that unified the many tribes in Arabia. So it is that the House of Prince Ali, last King of Hejaz, attempted to expand the Hashemites by assisting in the liberation of the Middle Eastern Region from Ottoman sovereignty.

Sons in the House of Prince Ali, last King of Hejaz:

• Prince Abdullah, Emir (later King) of Transjordan
• Prince Faisal, (later King) of Iraq and Syria

In the open period of the Mandate, the Jewish Organizations mustered resources to secure the establishment of a Jewish National Home in ancient region of Palestine. The indigenous Arab population of Palestine, with a territorial history in the land for two millennia disapproved of the 1919 agreement between Emir Faisal and Chaim Weizmann pertaining to the individual "national aspirations" of the Arab and the Jewish. Additionally, the indigenous Arab Population --- which did not assist in the liberation effort, mistakenly felt that they should be awarded territorial concessions for nothing, and opposed the decision by the Allied Powers to start a resettlement project for the purpose of preserving and protecting the Jewish Culture from extinction. In the late 1970's the Arab Palestinians would adopt the mantra that such a move violated their natural and inalienable rights; although these rights did not exist at the time the Allied Powers made the decisions. They also viewed it as an infringement of assurances of independence given by the Allied Powers to Arab leaders in return for their support during the war. While it is a matter of record, that Prince Faisal did write (10 March 1921) to the Allied Powers through the British House of Commons on the issue of the Arabs entered the war on the side of the Allies with certain clear aims - unfulfilled by the Powers, it is NOT a case that the Arabs of Palestine had any legitimate claim. The Faisal Memo was submitted by General Hoddad Pasha (Hejaz Army) and delegated by His Royal Highness Emir Faisal --- it was fair in saying the Army of the Hejaz had a claim; but their was no associated effort by an Arab Army west of the Jordan River; it was a false claim. The outcome was mounting resistance to the Mandate by Palestinian Arabs, and the resort to an ever gradually escalating level of violence against the Jewish community; including the Arab creation of Palestinian Black Hand by Izz ad-Din al-Qassam (who would become the name sake martyr of the military wing and brigade of the same name in the Islamic Resistance Movement nearly 60 years later).

There is no question that there was a promise made to the Last King of the Hejaz concerning the Kingdoms owed the surviving sons. But there was no such promise made to the Arab west of the Jordan, because they made NO significant contribution in the liberation. And on the contrary, they actually created disturbances and disruption in public order for the Administration.

• In April, 1920, five Jews were killed and over two hundred injured in the first outbreak of anti-Zionist Arab violence.
• A year later, in May 1921, more serious attacks were make by Arabs on the Jews of Jaffa and of five rural settlements. On this occasion 47 Jews were killed and 146 wounded.

In separate reports, one by the Civil Administration and one by the Military Support Detachment, this commentary set the tone.

The demonstrators clashed with the police, and during the next few weeks other riots took place in Jaffa, Nablus, Haifa, and again in Jerusalem. In the course of these disorders, one policeman and 24 civilians were killed. The disturbances of 1933 differed from those of 1920, 1921 and 1929 in that they were directed not against the Jews but against the mandatory Government, which was accused of tilting the balance against the Arabs in its administration of the mandate.
​

Why did the "Bedouin king from deep in the Arabian desert had the right to make decisions?" Because they were the most civilized --- I suspect.

Most Respectfully,
R

Well, actually, you don't see many founding fathers of Israel that were born in Palestine.​

That is correct. Israel is a foreign government imposed on Palestine by military force.

 

[toastman]

montelatici, et al,

Well, actually, you don't see many founding fathers of Israel that were born in Palestine.

I tried to make two points here:

• That Hussein bin Ali, GCB, Grand Sharif and Emir of Mecca (and ruler of Medina, capital of the al-Madinah Region); last of the Hashemite Sharifians, with Mecca being the birthplace of Muhammad (PBUH), and the site of the first revelation of the Quran (and Medina - where the final surahs of the Quran were revealed to the Prophet, called Medinan surahs); the two holiest cities in the religion of Islam; and Mecca being the former capital city of the Hejaz (now a capital of Makkah Province in Saudi Arabia); --- was not just any "self appointed Bedouin king from deep in the Arabian desert."

• That Hussein bin Ali, was a highly regarded by Shiite Muslim, and his sons, made themselves useful to the British Empire and were instrumental in initiating the Arab Revolt in 1916 against the Ottoman Empire; helping to pin-down Ottoman Forces that would have otherwise been free to attack the British Egyptian Expeditionary Forces.

With all of that Rocco, what does it mean? That some self appointed Bedouin king from deep in the Arabian desert had the right to make decisions for the native Christians and Muslims of Palestine? How many Palestinian (Arab) Jews participated in the battles against the Turks?

(COMMENT)

Just like the House of Saud went to work --- and out of all the potential leaders in the Court of Sheikhs --- became the House that unified the many tribes in Arabia. So it is that the House of Prince Ali, last King of Hejaz, attempted to expand the Hashemites by assisting in the liberation of the Middle Eastern Region from Ottoman sovereignty.

Sons in the House of Prince Ali, last King of Hejaz:

• Prince Abdullah, Emir (later King) of Transjordan
• Prince Faisal, (later King) of Iraq and Syria

In the open period of the Mandate, the Jewish Organizations mustered resources to secure the establishment of a Jewish National Home in ancient region of Palestine. The indigenous Arab population of Palestine, with a territorial history in the land for two millennia disapproved of the 1919 agreement between Emir Faisal and Chaim Weizmann pertaining to the individual "national aspirations" of the Arab and the Jewish. Additionally, the indigenous Arab Population --- which did not assist in the liberation effort, mistakenly felt that they should be awarded territorial concessions for nothing, and opposed the decision by the Allied Powers to start a resettlement project for the purpose of preserving and protecting the Jewish Culture from extinction. In the late 1970's the Arab Palestinians would adopt the mantra that such a move violated their natural and inalienable rights; although these rights did not exist at the time the Allied Powers made the decisions. They also viewed it as an infringement of assurances of independence given by the Allied Powers to Arab leaders in return for their support during the war. While it is a matter of record, that Prince Faisal did write (10 March 1921) to the Allied Powers through the British House of Commons on the issue of the Arabs entered the war on the side of the Allies with certain clear aims - unfulfilled by the Powers, it is NOT a case that the Arabs of Palestine had any legitimate claim. The Faisal Memo was submitted by General Hoddad Pasha (Hejaz Army) and delegated by His Royal Highness Emir Faisal --- it was fair in saying the Army of the Hejaz had a claim; but their was no associated effort by an Arab Army west of the Jordan River; it was a false claim. The outcome was mounting resistance to the Mandate by Palestinian Arabs, and the resort to an ever gradually escalating level of violence against the Jewish community; including the Arab creation of Palestinian Black Hand by Izz ad-Din al-Qassam (who would become the name sake martyr of the military wing and brigade of the same name in the Islamic Resistance Movement nearly 60 years later).

There is no question that there was a promise made to the Last King of the Hejaz concerning the Kingdoms owed the surviving sons. But there was no such promise made to the Arab west of the Jordan, because they made NO significant contribution in the liberation. And on the contrary, they actually created disturbances and disruption in public order for the Administration.

• In April, 1920, five Jews were killed and over two hundred injured in the first outbreak of anti-Zionist Arab violence.
• A year later, in May 1921, more serious attacks were make by Arabs on the Jews of Jaffa and of five rural settlements. On this occasion 47 Jews were killed and 146 wounded.

In separate reports, one by the Civil Administration and one by the Military Support Detachment, this commentary set the tone.

The demonstrators clashed with the police, and during the next few weeks other riots took place in Jaffa, Nablus, Haifa, and again in Jerusalem. In the course of these disorders, one policeman and 24 civilians were killed. The disturbances of 1933 differed from those of 1920, 1921 and 1929 in that they were directed not against the Jews but against the mandatory Government, which was accused of tilting the balance against the Arabs in its administration of the mandate.
​

Why did the "Bedouin king from deep in the Arabian desert had the right to make decisions?" Because they were the most civilized --- I suspect.

Most Respectfully,
R

Well, actually, you don't see many founding fathers of Israel that were born in Palestine.​

That is correct. Israel is a foreign government imposed on Palestine by military force.

How is it 'imposing military force' for Israel to legally declare independence on territory allotted to her by the partition plan, which is EXACTLY the same way the Palestinian declared independence

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is not even close to being correct.

Well, actually, you don't see many founding fathers of Israel that were born in Palestine.​

That is correct. Israel is a foreign government imposed on Palestine by military force.

(COMMENT)

• A foreign government was not imposed by military force.
• A new government was established by the right of self-determination.
• It was defended by military force from direct foreign military (external) interference by aggressor hostile Arabs.

Most Respectfully,
R