Israeli Public Opinion and the Peace Process

[Phoenall]

Oh? Oo. Ok, then.

First of, I don't really agree with the definition as it is, in Israel. Most Israeli Jews are traditional. If you ask we respect the holidays and go to the synagogue or the Kotel at least once in awhile. The strictly religious and completely secular Jews are in minority.

So I see myself as Masortit.

Preferential treatments of Jews, yes or no? Mhmm. Yes. But only when it comes to immigration. Nothing less, nothing more.

Should Arabs be expelled? Family members of Israeli Arabs who commit terror against civilians and state, definitely. Should everyday Arabs should be expelled 'Just because'? 'F'course not. Those who voted yes are assholes.

Two states solution possible? No.

Out of curiousity, why do you believe a two-state solution is impossible?

I'm beginning to think that way, but have not given up on it.

Because if you take notice at your own threads, neither one of us wants the other around. And you cannot force people to get along.

I would think that would make a two-state solution easier - two seperate states.

Not when one refuses to even think about giving up on their world conquest. The arab's do not want Israel to exist it is Dar al Harb, or land under war.

 

[Phoenall]

Oh? Oo. Ok, then.

First of, I don't really agree with the definition as it is, in Israel. Most Israeli Jews are traditional. If you ask we respect the holidays and go to the synagogue or the Kotel at least once in awhile. The strictly religious and completely secular Jews are in minority.

So I see myself as Masortit.

Preferential treatments of Jews, yes or no? Mhmm. Yes. But only when it comes to immigration. Nothing less, nothing more.

Should Arabs be expelled? Family members of Israeli Arabs who commit terror against civilians and state, definitely. Should everyday Arabs should be expelled 'Just because'? 'F'course not. Those who voted yes are assholes.

Two states solution possible? No.

Out of curiousity, why do you believe a two-state solution is impossible?

I'm beginning to think that way, but have not given up on it.

Because if you take notice at your own threads, neither one of us wants the other around. And you cannot force people to get along.

I would think that would make a two-state solution easier - two seperate states.

And what will be the borders?

I put forward those delineated on the LoN mandate that includes Jerusalem as wholly Jewish. And the Palestinians can move to arab palestine

 

[Phoenall]

Oh? Oo. Ok, then.

First of, I don't really agree with the definition as it is, in Israel. Most Israeli Jews are traditional. If you ask we respect the holidays and go to the synagogue or the Kotel at least once in awhile. The strictly religious and completely secular Jews are in minority.

So I see myself as Masortit.

Preferential treatments of Jews, yes or no? Mhmm. Yes. But only when it comes to immigration. Nothing less, nothing more.

Should Arabs be expelled? Family members of Israeli Arabs who commit terror against civilians and state, definitely. Should everyday Arabs should be expelled 'Just because'? 'F'course not. Those who voted yes are assholes.

Two states solution possible? No.

Out of curiousity, why do you believe a two-state solution is impossible?

I'm beginning to think that way, but have not given up on it.

Because if you take notice at your own threads, neither one of us wants the other around. And you cannot force people to get along.

I would think that would make a two-state solution easier - two seperate states.

And what will be the borders?

That's the ten million dollar question.

Not when they are already set in stone in an international treaty...........................

 

[Phoenall]

In general my experience with other First Nations people has been that they wouldn't expel every colonist everywhere. Only the violent ones apposed to peaceful coexistence

That doesn't seem reflected in the public opinon poll though - in 3 of the 4 Jewish categories, more than half wanted to expell the Arabs. There was no distinction between violent and non-violent. I will have to see how they actually worded the questions though.

And 70% of Arabs want to expel Jews. Which is just making my point.

Which point?

That 2-states-solution is not a real solution.

What would be? I do not see a one-state solution as being feasible. 3 states maybe with Gaza and WB seperate.

Strange that as this was talked about in 2014 and fatah was all set to cast gaza adrift, then all hell broke loose and fatah cosied up to hamas again. I wonder who poked their nose in this time ?

 

[Phoenall]

Lets keep it simple for the O.P.

Indeed, "simple" is quite correct.

Trying to keep it simple for the islamofacist supporters

Like this Islamofascist supporter?

So you are using his Jewish race here are you, as he cant be a socialist and a practising Jew.

He also has been found guilty of fraud.


You always get your hands dirty don't you freddy boy

 

[Phoenall]

Oh? Oo. Ok, then.

First of, I don't really agree with the definition as it is, in Israel. Most Israeli Jews are traditional. If you ask we respect the holidays and go to the synagogue or the Kotel at least once in awhile. The strictly religious and completely secular Jews are in minority.

So I see myself as Masortit.

Preferential treatments of Jews, yes or no? Mhmm. Yes. But only when it comes to immigration. Nothing less, nothing more.

Should Arabs be expelled? Family members of Israeli Arabs who commit terror against civilians and state, definitely. Should everyday Arabs should be expelled 'Just because'? 'F'course not. Those who voted yes are assholes.

Two states solution possible? No.

Out of curiousity, why do you believe a two-state solution is impossible?

I'm beginning to think that way, but have not given up on it.

Because if you take notice at your own threads, neither one of us wants the other around. And you cannot force people to get along.

I would think that would make a two-state solution easier - two seperate states.

And what will be the borders?

According to Israel's plan, the West Bank will be a series of bantustans completely surrounded by Israel. They would only have one border and that would be Israel. That is called the Gazafication of the West Bank.

No Palestinian can agree to that.

And your evidence for this is what, some islamonazi propaganda outlet ?

 

[Phoenall]

Given the demographic situation, it will be the Jews that will have to leave if they don't learn to live in peace with the non-Jews they currently they rule over.

Not when the arab contingent start killing themselves, then the Jews will no longer have a problem. And all they need do is walk away from the parts they don't want and erect a Saudi barrier keeping the Palestinians out. See how long it is before Jordan does the same thing ?

 

[Coyote]

Out of curiousity, why do you believe a two-state solution is impossible?

I'm beginning to think that way, but have not given up on it.

Because if you take notice at your own threads, neither one of us wants the other around. And you cannot force people to get along.

I would think that would make a two-state solution easier - two seperate states.

And what will be the borders?

That's the ten million dollar question.

Not when they are already set in stone in an international treaty...........................

There is no international treaty.

 

[Boston1]

Because if you take notice at your own threads, neither one of us wants the other around. And you cannot force people to get along.

I would think that would make a two-state solution easier - two seperate states.

And what will be the borders?

That's the ten million dollar question.

Not when they are already set in stone in an international treaty...........................

There is no international treaty.

What makes you think that ?

From
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...0ydt7FWypnFOkUIp_IZdlg&bvm=bv.117218890,d.cGc


Quote

Further, Egypt never bothered to annex Gaza and no Palestinian Arab state ever existed throughout human history. However, according to the San Remo Resolution of April 25, 1920 and the Mandate for Palestine of July 24, 1922, Judea and Samaria, East Jerusalem, and Gaza were all supposed to be part of a Jewish state. These agreements are still relevant, since Article 80 of the UN Charter states that all mandates of the League of Nations are still valid.

Some people falsely believe that the Palestine Mandate was terminated in 1947, but this is not correct. According to Professor Eugene Rostow, former dean of Yale Law School, “A trust never terminates when a trustee dies, resigns, embezzles the trust property, or is dismissed. The authority responsible for the trust appoints a new trustee, or otherwise arranges for the fulfillment of its purpose.” Thus, while the Palestine Mandate ceased to exist in Israel and Jordan when Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom obtained independence, Professor Rostow claims “its rules apply still to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which have not yet been allocated either to Israel or to Jordan or become an independent state.” He claims that legally speaking, the Armistice Lines of 1949 represent nothing more than the positions the contending armies finished at the conclusion of Israel’s War of Independence.



Leading international law expert Julius Stone concurred. He asserted that Article 49 only relates to the invasion of sovereign states, a title the Palestinians never possessed. Stone also argued that the history behind the drafting of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention needs to be taken into account, especially considering how drastically different Israel’s situation in Judea and Samaria is to what existed in Europe under Nazism. He furthermore asserted, “No serious dilution (much less extinction) of native populations exists, rather a dramatic improvement in the economic situation of the local Palestinian inhabitants since 1967 has occurred.”

Since the end of World War II, no territorial dispute in the world has been defined as occupied territories, except in Israel’s case. According to Eli Hertz, in virtually every other disagreement concerning borders and territories, the most common terms applied are territorial disputes and contested borders. This is even the case for the places like the Western Sahara, Northern Cyprus, and Nagorno-Karabakh. Furthermore, given the legal status of Palestine under the British Mandate, as a state to be established for the Jewish people, Israel also has stronger grounds to argue based on international law that these territories are within her national borders than any other state within the region.

By Rachel Avraham

End Quote

 

[Coyote]

I would think that would make a two-state solution easier - two seperate states.

And what will be the borders?

That's the ten million dollar question.

Not when they are already set in stone in an international treaty...........................

There is no international treaty.

What makes you think that ?

From
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwi87-Lf1c_LAhVD-mMKHRGgB6wQFggkMAE&url=http://unitedwithisrael.org/why-israel-is-not-violating-fourth-geneva-convention/&usg=AFQjCNH_BIb3o-HXcMDAbW2jCurNRpr6cw&sig2=0ydt7FWypnFOkUIp_IZdlg&bvm=bv.117218890,d.cGc


Quote

Further, Egypt never bothered to annex Gaza and no Palestinian Arab state ever existed throughout human history. However, according to the San Remo Resolution of April 25, 1920 and the Mandate for Palestine of July 24, 1922, Judea and Samaria, East Jerusalem, and Gaza were all supposed to be part of a Jewish state. These agreements are still relevant, since Article 80 of the UN Charter states that all mandates of the League of Nations are still valid.

Some people falsely believe that the Palestine Mandate was terminated in 1947, but this is not correct. According to Professor Eugene Rostow, former dean of Yale Law School, “A trust never terminates when a trustee dies, resigns, embezzles the trust property, or is dismissed. The authority responsible for the trust appoints a new trustee, or otherwise arranges for the fulfillment of its purpose.” Thus, while the Palestine Mandate ceased to exist in Israel and Jordan when Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom obtained independence, Professor Rostow claims “its rules apply still to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which have not yet been allocated either to Israel or to Jordan or become an independent state.” He claims that legally speaking, the Armistice Lines of 1949 represent nothing more than the positions the contending armies finished at the conclusion of Israel’s War of Independence.



Leading international law expert Julius Stone concurred. He asserted that Article 49 only relates to the invasion of sovereign states, a title the Palestinians never possessed. Stone also argued that the history behind the drafting of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention needs to be taken into account, especially considering how drastically different Israel’s situation in Judea and Samaria is to what existed in Europe under Nazism. He furthermore asserted, “No serious dilution (much less extinction) of native populations exists, rather a dramatic improvement in the economic situation of the local Palestinian inhabitants since 1967 has occurred.”

Since the end of World War II, no territorial dispute in the world has been defined as occupied territories, except in Israel’s case. According to Eli Hertz, in virtually every other disagreement concerning borders and territories, the most common terms applied are territorial disputes and contested borders. This is even the case for the places like the Western Sahara, Northern Cyprus, and Nagorno-Karabakh. Furthermore, given the legal status of Palestine under the British Mandate, as a state to be established for the Jewish people, Israel also has stronger grounds to argue based on international law that these territories are within her national borders than any other state within the region.

By Rachel Avraham

End Quote

The mandate is not an international treaty.

 

[Phoenall]

Because if you take notice at your own threads, neither one of us wants the other around. And you cannot force people to get along.

I would think that would make a two-state solution easier - two seperate states.

And what will be the borders?

That's the ten million dollar question.

Not when they are already set in stone in an international treaty...........................

There is no international treaty.

Treaty of Sevres and the treaty of Lausanne both delineate the borders of both Jewish Palestine and arab Palestine. So are you saying now that Jordan has never existed ?

Every time you are shown that a treaty of International law supports the Jews you deny its existence, showing that you hate the Jews with a vengance

 

[Phoenall]

And what will be the borders?

That's the ten million dollar question.

Not when they are already set in stone in an international treaty...........................

There is no international treaty.

What makes you think that ?

From
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwi87-Lf1c_LAhVD-mMKHRGgB6wQFggkMAE&url=http://unitedwithisrael.org/why-israel-is-not-violating-fourth-geneva-convention/&usg=AFQjCNH_BIb3o-HXcMDAbW2jCurNRpr6cw&sig2=0ydt7FWypnFOkUIp_IZdlg&bvm=bv.117218890,d.cGc


Quote

Further, Egypt never bothered to annex Gaza and no Palestinian Arab state ever existed throughout human history. However, according to the San Remo Resolution of April 25, 1920 and the Mandate for Palestine of July 24, 1922, Judea and Samaria, East Jerusalem, and Gaza were all supposed to be part of a Jewish state. These agreements are still relevant, since Article 80 of the UN Charter states that all mandates of the League of Nations are still valid.

Some people falsely believe that the Palestine Mandate was terminated in 1947, but this is not correct. According to Professor Eugene Rostow, former dean of Yale Law School, “A trust never terminates when a trustee dies, resigns, embezzles the trust property, or is dismissed. The authority responsible for the trust appoints a new trustee, or otherwise arranges for the fulfillment of its purpose.” Thus, while the Palestine Mandate ceased to exist in Israel and Jordan when Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom obtained independence, Professor Rostow claims “its rules apply still to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which have not yet been allocated either to Israel or to Jordan or become an independent state.” He claims that legally speaking, the Armistice Lines of 1949 represent nothing more than the positions the contending armies finished at the conclusion of Israel’s War of Independence.



Leading international law expert Julius Stone concurred. He asserted that Article 49 only relates to the invasion of sovereign states, a title the Palestinians never possessed. Stone also argued that the history behind the drafting of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention needs to be taken into account, especially considering how drastically different Israel’s situation in Judea and Samaria is to what existed in Europe under Nazism. He furthermore asserted, “No serious dilution (much less extinction) of native populations exists, rather a dramatic improvement in the economic situation of the local Palestinian inhabitants since 1967 has occurred.”

Since the end of World War II, no territorial dispute in the world has been defined as occupied territories, except in Israel’s case. According to Eli Hertz, in virtually every other disagreement concerning borders and territories, the most common terms applied are territorial disputes and contested borders. This is even the case for the places like the Western Sahara, Northern Cyprus, and Nagorno-Karabakh. Furthermore, given the legal status of Palestine under the British Mandate, as a state to be established for the Jewish people, Israel also has stronger grounds to argue based on international law that these territories are within her national borders than any other state within the region.

By Rachel Avraham

End Quote

The mandate is not an international treaty.

It is if you check. If you can find a valid source saying it isn't please post the details, otherwise admit that you are wrong and should be stopped from posting anti semitic LIES

 

[Coyote]

That's the ten million dollar question.

Not when they are already set in stone in an international treaty...........................

There is no international treaty.

What makes you think that ?

From
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwi87-Lf1c_LAhVD-mMKHRGgB6wQFggkMAE&url=http://unitedwithisrael.org/why-israel-is-not-violating-fourth-geneva-convention/&usg=AFQjCNH_BIb3o-HXcMDAbW2jCurNRpr6cw&sig2=0ydt7FWypnFOkUIp_IZdlg&bvm=bv.117218890,d.cGc


Quote

Further, Egypt never bothered to annex Gaza and no Palestinian Arab state ever existed throughout human history. However, according to the San Remo Resolution of April 25, 1920 and the Mandate for Palestine of July 24, 1922, Judea and Samaria, East Jerusalem, and Gaza were all supposed to be part of a Jewish state. These agreements are still relevant, since Article 80 of the UN Charter states that all mandates of the League of Nations are still valid.

Some people falsely believe that the Palestine Mandate was terminated in 1947, but this is not correct. According to Professor Eugene Rostow, former dean of Yale Law School, “A trust never terminates when a trustee dies, resigns, embezzles the trust property, or is dismissed. The authority responsible for the trust appoints a new trustee, or otherwise arranges for the fulfillment of its purpose.” Thus, while the Palestine Mandate ceased to exist in Israel and Jordan when Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom obtained independence, Professor Rostow claims “its rules apply still to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which have not yet been allocated either to Israel or to Jordan or become an independent state.” He claims that legally speaking, the Armistice Lines of 1949 represent nothing more than the positions the contending armies finished at the conclusion of Israel’s War of Independence.



Leading international law expert Julius Stone concurred. He asserted that Article 49 only relates to the invasion of sovereign states, a title the Palestinians never possessed. Stone also argued that the history behind the drafting of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention needs to be taken into account, especially considering how drastically different Israel’s situation in Judea and Samaria is to what existed in Europe under Nazism. He furthermore asserted, “No serious dilution (much less extinction) of native populations exists, rather a dramatic improvement in the economic situation of the local Palestinian inhabitants since 1967 has occurred.”

Since the end of World War II, no territorial dispute in the world has been defined as occupied territories, except in Israel’s case. According to Eli Hertz, in virtually every other disagreement concerning borders and territories, the most common terms applied are territorial disputes and contested borders. This is even the case for the places like the Western Sahara, Northern Cyprus, and Nagorno-Karabakh. Furthermore, given the legal status of Palestine under the British Mandate, as a state to be established for the Jewish people, Israel also has stronger grounds to argue based on international law that these territories are within her national borders than any other state within the region.

By Rachel Avraham

End Quote

The mandate is not an international treaty.

It is if you check. If you can find a valid source saying it isn't please post the details, otherwise admit that you are wrong and should be stopped from posting anti semitic LIES

From what I understand - and this is how Rocco explained it - it was an agreement between the allied powers - nothing more. Not a treaty, and not including either the Jews or the Arabs and no promises made to either. My understanding is this lack of legal status and lack of any final resolution for the region directly involving Jews and Arabs is what has led to the conflict it's in now. He's the only member here directly involved in this stuff and he explains it so it's understandable. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it but that is how I understand it.

 

[Coyote]

I would think that would make a two-state solution easier - two seperate states.

And what will be the borders?

That's the ten million dollar question.

Not when they are already set in stone in an international treaty...........................

There is no international treaty.

Treaty of Sevres and the treaty of Lausanne both delineate the borders of both Jewish Palestine and arab Palestine. So are you saying now that Jordan has never existed ?

Every time you are shown that a treaty of International law supports the Jews you deny its existence, showing that you hate the Jews with a vengance

And everytime you are contradicted you scream "joooo hater". Seriously. Grow up.

I'm not familiar with either treaty you are talking about nor how they relate to legal borders. If they are legally binding documents in relation to borders than why did the borders of Israel when Israel declared it's independence look the way they do? RoccoR

 

[docmauser1]

I'm not familiar with either treaty you are talking about nor how they relate to legal borders. If they are legally binding documents in relation to borders than why did the borders of Israel when Israel declared it's independence look the way they do? RoccoR

Palistan and palistanians have no land and no borders, that's all there's to know, of course.

 

[alpine]

Israeli public did state their opinion regarding this issue, when secular people of Israel elected Yitzhak Rabin as their prime minister, to bring peace to their country.

But all this has been undermined by religious fundamentalist fanatic jews.

So, bottom line is; Israeli and Palestinian people want peace, but jewish and muslim fundamentalists wont allow this to happen...

 

[Phoenall]

Not when they are already set in stone in an international treaty...........................

There is no international treaty.

What makes you think that ?

From
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwi87-Lf1c_LAhVD-mMKHRGgB6wQFggkMAE&url=http://unitedwithisrael.org/why-israel-is-not-violating-fourth-geneva-convention/&usg=AFQjCNH_BIb3o-HXcMDAbW2jCurNRpr6cw&sig2=0ydt7FWypnFOkUIp_IZdlg&bvm=bv.117218890,d.cGc


Quote

Further, Egypt never bothered to annex Gaza and no Palestinian Arab state ever existed throughout human history. However, according to the San Remo Resolution of April 25, 1920 and the Mandate for Palestine of July 24, 1922, Judea and Samaria, East Jerusalem, and Gaza were all supposed to be part of a Jewish state. These agreements are still relevant, since Article 80 of the UN Charter states that all mandates of the League of Nations are still valid.

Some people falsely believe that the Palestine Mandate was terminated in 1947, but this is not correct. According to Professor Eugene Rostow, former dean of Yale Law School, “A trust never terminates when a trustee dies, resigns, embezzles the trust property, or is dismissed. The authority responsible for the trust appoints a new trustee, or otherwise arranges for the fulfillment of its purpose.” Thus, while the Palestine Mandate ceased to exist in Israel and Jordan when Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom obtained independence, Professor Rostow claims “its rules apply still to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which have not yet been allocated either to Israel or to Jordan or become an independent state.” He claims that legally speaking, the Armistice Lines of 1949 represent nothing more than the positions the contending armies finished at the conclusion of Israel’s War of Independence.



Leading international law expert Julius Stone concurred. He asserted that Article 49 only relates to the invasion of sovereign states, a title the Palestinians never possessed. Stone also argued that the history behind the drafting of Article 49 of the Geneva Convention needs to be taken into account, especially considering how drastically different Israel’s situation in Judea and Samaria is to what existed in Europe under Nazism. He furthermore asserted, “No serious dilution (much less extinction) of native populations exists, rather a dramatic improvement in the economic situation of the local Palestinian inhabitants since 1967 has occurred.”

Since the end of World War II, no territorial dispute in the world has been defined as occupied territories, except in Israel’s case. According to Eli Hertz, in virtually every other disagreement concerning borders and territories, the most common terms applied are territorial disputes and contested borders. This is even the case for the places like the Western Sahara, Northern Cyprus, and Nagorno-Karabakh. Furthermore, given the legal status of Palestine under the British Mandate, as a state to be established for the Jewish people, Israel also has stronger grounds to argue based on international law that these territories are within her national borders than any other state within the region.

By Rachel Avraham

End Quote

The mandate is not an international treaty.

It is if you check. If you can find a valid source saying it isn't please post the details, otherwise admit that you are wrong and should be stopped from posting anti semitic LIES

From what I understand - and this is how Rocco explained it - it was an agreement between the allied powers - nothing more. Not a treaty, and not including either the Jews or the Arabs and no promises made to either. My understanding is this lack of legal status and lack of any final resolution for the region directly involving Jews and Arabs is what has led to the conflict it's in now. He's the only member here directly involved in this stuff and he explains it so it's understandable. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it but that is how I understand it.

Then he must have done so in a P.M. as I have never seen him post such a thing.


Loathe as I am to use wiki here is what it has to say



League of Nations mandate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A League of Nations mandate was a legal status for certain territories transferred from the control of one country to another following World War I, or the legal instruments that contained the internationally agreed-upon terms for administering the territory on behalf of the League. These were of the nature of both a treaty and a constitution, which contained minority rights clauses that provided for the rights of petition and adjudication by the International Court.[1] The mandate system was established under Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, entered into on 28 June 1919. With the dissolution of the League of Nations after World War II, it was stipulated at the Yalta Conference that the remaining Mandates should be placed under the trusteeship of the United Nations, subject to future discussions and formal agreements. Most of the remaining mandates of the League of Nations (with the exception of South-West Africa) thus eventually became United Nations Trust Territories.

 

[Phoenall]

And what will be the borders?

That's the ten million dollar question.

Not when they are already set in stone in an international treaty...........................

There is no international treaty.

Treaty of Sevres and the treaty of Lausanne both delineate the borders of both Jewish Palestine and arab Palestine. So are you saying now that Jordan has never existed ?

Every time you are shown that a treaty of International law supports the Jews you deny its existence, showing that you hate the Jews with a vengance

And everytime you are contradicted you scream "joooo hater". Seriously. Grow up.

I'm not familiar with either treaty you are talking about nor how they relate to legal borders. If they are legally binding documents in relation to borders than why did the borders of Israel when Israel declared it's independence look the way they do? RoccoR

Ever thought that this is because you are acting just like a 1930's German Nazi

The borders for Israel were set in stone by the mandate of Palestine when it delineated the 22% of Palestine for the Jews national home. The UN tried to be clever and allocate a part of that grant to the arab muslims rather than just tell them they had Jordan and that was all they were getting. So when the Jews declared independence the land was in turmoil as the UN had made a massive mistake that we are still paying the price for it 68 years later.
In 1949 the UN realising their mistake altered the UN charter granting Israel the right to be the Jewish nation and the full backing of the UN if they ever took their case to the UNSC in regards to the arab muslims squatting on Jewish land. Another example of the UN speaking with a forked tongue