Israel's Legal Right To Exist

[RoccoR]

Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is confusing.

Jordan invaded the mandate of palestine

Where do you people get your bullshit? The Mandate left Palestine the day before.

(COMMENT)

As you all know, in February 1948 Memo on the Successor Government, served a number of different purposes; the three biggest being a "financial matter" and the other being a "governmental matter," and a matter of "independence through self-governance."

• The first was to shift the burden of the Defense Bond/War Loan relative to the Mandatory (UK) for the new Government of Palestine.

• The second was to establish, pursuant to Chapter XII --- Article 77a, the Successor Government to Palestine; as a legal entity and the authority responsible for its administration.
​

[/indent]

I've seen this argument before. First, since you are quibbling about the exact words:

• The "Mandate" did NOT leave Palestine. The Mandatory (UK) departed Palestine on mid-night 14/15 May.
​

There was simultaneously a political and governmental conversion process:

• The Mandate converted into a Trusteeship.
• The Mandatory converted into a Commission.
​

The final simultaneous development was the self-governing institution:

• As recommended, the allocated territorial plot for the Jewish State was converted into the Government of Israel (the reality of Jewish State).
​

Now all sorts of theoretical arguments about the 1947 Resolution being "real" (did not happen) and the legality of this or that. But there is a true reality: If you stand at 31.777° North Latitude 35.205° East Longitude, you will be standing in the middle (approximately) of the Knesset in Jerusalem; the Capital of Israel. Without regard to anything else --- the reality of the physical world --- is that the national legislature of Israel (where laws are made for the sovereignty) stands indisputably in that location.

​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Eloy]

Eloy, et al,

This is simply NOT true. This was an interpretation made by unskilled and uneducated (in the ways of politics and diplomacy) laymen.

You have been taken-in by Zionist propaganda so that you do not even believe what your own eyes tell you. The Israelis were told to withdraw from "territories occupied in the recent conflict". This, of course, includes the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza.

(COMMENT)

If you want to know and understand what the Resolutions actually says, GO TO THE SOURCE:

But while many sources correctly describe the wording and intent of Resolution 242, others have misrepresented it as requiring Israel to return to the pre-1967 lines – the armistice lines established after Israel’s War of Independence.

Such an interpretation was explicitly not the intention of the framers of 242, nor does the language of the resolution include any such requirement.

Lord Caradon (Hugh M. Foot) was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations, 1964-1970, and chief drafter of Resolution 242.

• Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, pg. 13, qtd. in Egypt’s Struggle for Peace: Continuity and Change, 1967-1977, Yoram Meital, pg. 49:

Much play has been made of the fact that we didn’t say “the” territories or “all the” territories. But that was deliberate. I myself knew very well the 1967 boundaries and if we had put in the “the” or “all the” that could only have meant that we wished to see the 1967 boundaries perpetuated in the form of a permanent frontier. This I was certainly not prepared to recommend.

• Journal of Palestine Studies, “An Interview with Lord Caradon,” Spring - Summer 1976, pgs 144-45:

Q. The basis for any settlement will be United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, of which you were the architect. Would you say there is a contradiction between the part of the resolution that stresses the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and that which calls for Israeli withdrawal from “occupied territories,” but not from “the occupied territories”?

A. I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.

Had we said that you must go back to the 1967 line, which would have resulted if we had specified a retreat from all the occupied territories, we would have been wrong. In New York, what did we know about Tayyibe and Qalqilya? If we had attempted in New York to draw a new line, we would have been rather vague. So what we stated was the principle that you couldn’t hold territory because you conquered it, therefore there must be a withdrawal to – let’s read the words carefully – “secure and recognized boundaries.” They can only be secure if they are recognized. The boundaries have to be agreed; it’s only when you get agreement that you get security. I think that now people begin to realize what we had in mind – that security doesn’t come from arms, it doesn’t come from territory, it doesn’t come from geography, it doesn’t come from one side domination the other, it can only come from agreement and mutual respect and understanding.

Therefore, what we did, I think, was right; what the resolution said was right and I would stand by it. It needs to be added to now, of course. ... We didn’t attempt to deal with [the questions of the Palestinians and of Jerusalem] then, but merely to state the general principles of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. We meant that the occupied territories could not be held merely because they were occupied, but we deliberately did not say that the old line, where the troops happened to be on that particular night many years ago, was an ideal demarcation line.

• MacNeil/Lehrer Report, March 30, 1978:

We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the “the” in, we did not say “all the territories” deliberately. We all knew that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... . We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever.

• Daily Star (Beirut), June 12, 1974. Qtd. in Myths and Facts, Leonard J. Davis, pg. 48:

It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967 because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places the soldiers of each side happened to be the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to ...

• Interview on Kol Israel radio, February 1973, qtd. on Web site of Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

Q. This matter of the (definite) article which is there in French and is missing in English, is that really significant?

A. The purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary...

​

While there were more that 2 dozen Palestinian Terrorist Attacks by Jihadist and Fedayeen, in the year previous to the Arab incited 1967 Six Day War, there were the embryonic development of some serious incidents:

• Apr 25, 1966 - Explosions placed by Militants wounded two civilians and damaged three houses in moshav Beit Yosef, in the Beit She'an Valley.
• May 16, 1966 - Two Israelis were killed when their jeep hit a terrorist landmine, north of the Sea of Galilee and south of Almagor. Tracks led into Syria.
• July 14, 1966 - Militants attacked a house in Kfar Yuval, in the North.
• July 19, 1966 - Militants infiltrated into Moshav Margaliot on the northern border and planted nine explosive charges.
• Oct 27, 1966 - A civilian was wounded by an explosive charge on the railroad tracks to Jerusalem.

Back in the day, even then, no one wanted another failed Arab State in the Region; politically, economically, or commercially interactive. And it is still that way today. And in part, while the main reason to support the Jewish National Home/State of Israel, was the preservation and protection of a complete culture, there was --- lurking in the background --- that even then, Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters were going to become a big problem (with or without Israel). Better to preserve Israel then to let the Radical Islamist have they way and eventually destroy it.

Most Respectfully,
R

I went to the source; the document itself. I have no interest in wasting paragraphs on parsing simple English with someone who will not understand such as yourself.

 

[Eloy]

Eloy, et al,

Yes, this is a very important point. --- It is a very important point.

Something you could benefit from keeping in mind is that occupation of a territory in time of war was never understood to last for half a century and that such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over. The occupation of Palestine is bogus and is in fact the acquisition of land by Israel through war which is illegal.

(QUESTIONS)

•• When is a war over?

** In 1967, the Six Day War had (still in place) the 1949 Armistice Lines left over from a War that was still not over.

•• What war are you talking about? AND! Who were the parties to the war?

(COMMENT)

This is my opportunity to learn something from you. My understanding was:

•• Whether you talk about the 1948-49 War of Independence, the 1967 Six-Day War, or the 1973 Yom Kipper War, there were several "parties to the conflict" (somebody was at war with somebody). There was no party to any of the conflicts or an Armistice, or a treaty, pertaining to any party know as the "Palestinians" or any variation of that name.
•• Relative to the War most related to the Gaza Strip, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Egyptians. The 1979 Peace Treaty established "[t]he permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary." This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.
•• Relative to the War most related to the West Bank, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Jordanians. The 1994 Peace Treaty established "[t]he international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein." This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.
​

All differences and disputes relative to the conflict between Israel and the Arab States of Egypt and Jordan have been resolved. Permanent international borders have been established.

•• Israel was not at War with the Arab Palestinians.
•• Israel did not have an Armistice with the Arab Palestinians.
•• Israel neither seized, conquered, occupied or acquired anything from the Arab Palestinian.

•∆• Sovereign territory from the Jordanians - YES!
•∆• A Military Governorship from Egypt - YES!
•§• Nothing from any other sovereign or independent power pertaining to the West Bank or Gaza Strip.
​

So when you say "such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over;" what meaning does that have?

Nothing was taking from the inhabitance. If you check, you will find that on 31 July 1988, under the Jordanian Disengagement from the West Bank, King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only. This effectively abandon the West Bank to the Israelis; absent any other self-governing institution available.

Immediately following the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence, Egypt took control and placed a military administration over the newly formed Gaza Strip. Israel, after the 1967 Six-Day War, relieved the Egyptians of the Gaza Strip. Under a series of agreements known as the Oslo accords signed between 1994 and 1999, Israel transferred to the (new) Palestinian Authority (PA) much of the security and civilian responsibility for the Gaza Strip as well as the West Bank (Areas and Authority defined by the Agreements). Negotiations to determine the permanent status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip stalled in 2001, after which the area erupted into what became known as the Intifada. Neither of the two Sides activated the dispute resolution process. The two sides did not resume (in good faith) the Permanent Status negotiations. One side demands preconditions before talks resume and the other requires that no preconditions before talks resume.

Most Respectfully,
R

I am repeating what the United Nations Security Council agreed about the recent (1967) war in Resolution 242 where Israel is required to remove all its military to the 1967 borders. I thought you knew.

Israel was told to give up "territories" captured in the war, but not "all the territories". The language was deliberately ambiguous. In fact by giving up the Sinai, Israel has already complied.

You have been taken-in by Zionist propaganda so that you do not even believe what your own eyes tell you. The Israelis were told to withdraw from "territories occupied in the recent conflict". This, of course, includes the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza.

Once again I repeat that the language of the resolution was deliberately left ambiguous. ...

Nonsense; English is my native language.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

This is something that was a "view" nearly a century ago.

DOWNING STREET,
3rd June, 1922.

......These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned, are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917. Unauthorised 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 Delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine........ 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."

(COMMENT)

First, I ask you to review Posting # 1121, the reality.

Then I ask you a question: What's your Plan? What's your contingency if there is an outbreak of hostilities?

• Do you think that the contemporary Government of Israel (GOI) is just going to walk-up and hand the keys to Israel to you?
• What (very improbable) sets of events would have to occur that would induce the GOI to surrender their title and rights to self-government and sovereignty?
• How do you picture this unfolding?
​

I wonder what would happen if it were the UN that had to hand over its title and rights to self-government and sovereignty --- what would happen? Would we rain three kinds of hell upon them or four? Neither the UN or any other powerful body would: "intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter."

(RATIONAL CONSEQUENCE)

If the people of the only Jewish Nation in the world (8 Million = half the worlds Jewish population, including over 30,000 Americans from 36 different states) were to be put at the risk and invokes the inherent right of selfdefense (Chapter VII Art 51):

• What do you think the American domestic political backlash would be?
• Would America go to war with Israel over something America did and could have prevented?
• What does the Arab League have at risk if the peace and security of Israel was threatened?
• What assistance do you think Israel would ask of the Russian Federation should the US impose sanctions or embargoes?
• If it was your country, what lengths would you go to if you were the most civilized and developed country in the world?
​

IF you were the Emperor of the Earth, how do you put your plan into action?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is confusing.

Jordan invaded the mandate of palestine

Where do you people get your bullshit? The Mandate left Palestine the day before.

(COMMENT)

As you all know, in February 1948 Memo on the Successor Government, served a number of different purposes; the three biggest being a "financial matter" and the other being a "governmental matter," and a matter of "independence through self-governance."

• The first was to shift the burden of the Defense Bond/War Loan relative to the Mandatory (UK) for the new Government of Palestine.

• The second was to establish, pursuant to Chapter XII --- Article 77a, the Successor Government to Palestine; as a legal entity and the authority responsible for its administration.
​

[/indent]

I've seen this argument before. First, since you are quibbling about the exact words:

• The "Mandate" did NOT leave Palestine. The Mandatory (UK) departed Palestine on mid-night 14/15 May.
​

There was simultaneously a political and governmental conversion process:

• The Mandate converted into a Trusteeship.
• The Mandatory converted into a Commission.
​

The final simultaneous development was the self-governing institution:

• As recommended, the allocated territorial plot for the Jewish State was converted into the Government of Israel (the reality of Jewish State).
​

Now all sorts of theoretical arguments about the 1947 Resolution being "real" (did not happen) and the legality of this or that. But there is a true reality: If you stand at 31.777° North Latitude 35.205° East Longitude, you will be standing in the middle (approximately) of the Knesset in Jerusalem; the Capital of Israel. Without regard to anything else --- the reality of the physical world --- is that the national legislature of Israel (where laws are made for the sovereignty) stands indisputably in that location.

View attachment 100504
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Nothing was converted in 1948. The Jews from Europe simply acquired territory, inhabited by a majority of non-Jews through armed conquest, contrary to to main precept of the United Nations Charter.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is confusing.

Jordan invaded the mandate of palestine

Where do you people get your bullshit? The Mandate left Palestine the day before.

(COMMENT)

As you all know, in February 1948 Memo on the Successor Government, served a number of different purposes; the three biggest being a "financial matter" and the other being a "governmental matter," and a matter of "independence through self-governance."

• The first was to shift the burden of the Defense Bond/War Loan relative to the Mandatory (UK) for the new Government of Palestine.

• The second was to establish, pursuant to Chapter XII --- Article 77a, the Successor Government to Palestine; as a legal entity and the authority responsible for its administration.
​

[/indent]

I've seen this argument before. First, since you are quibbling about the exact words:

• The "Mandate" did NOT leave Palestine. The Mandatory (UK) departed Palestine on mid-night 14/15 May.
​

There was simultaneously a political and governmental conversion process:

• The Mandate converted into a Trusteeship.
• The Mandatory converted into a Commission.
​

The final simultaneous development was the self-governing institution:

• As recommended, the allocated territorial plot for the Jewish State was converted into the Government of Israel (the reality of Jewish State).
​

Now all sorts of theoretical arguments about the 1947 Resolution being "real" (did not happen) and the legality of this or that. But there is a true reality: If you stand at 31.777° North Latitude 35.205° East Longitude, you will be standing in the middle (approximately) of the Knesset in Jerusalem; the Capital of Israel. Without regard to anything else --- the reality of the physical world --- is that the national legislature of Israel (where laws are made for the sovereignty) stands indisputably in that location.

View attachment 100504
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, a continuing and almost completed colonial project.

 

[MJB12741]

Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is confusing.

Jordan invaded the mandate of palestine

Where do you people get your bullshit? The Mandate left Palestine the day before.

(COMMENT)

As you all know, in February 1948 Memo on the Successor Government, served a number of different purposes; the three biggest being a "financial matter" and the other being a "governmental matter," and a matter of "independence through self-governance."

• The first was to shift the burden of the Defense Bond/War Loan relative to the Mandatory (UK) for the new Government of Palestine.

• The second was to establish, pursuant to Chapter XII --- Article 77a, the Successor Government to Palestine; as a legal entity and the authority responsible for its administration.
​

[/indent]

I've seen this argument before. First, since you are quibbling about the exact words:

• The "Mandate" did NOT leave Palestine. The Mandatory (UK) departed Palestine on mid-night 14/15 May.
​

There was simultaneously a political and governmental conversion process:

• The Mandate converted into a Trusteeship.
• The Mandatory converted into a Commission.
​

The final simultaneous development was the self-governing institution:

• As recommended, the allocated territorial plot for the Jewish State was converted into the Government of Israel (the reality of Jewish State).
​

Now all sorts of theoretical arguments about the 1947 Resolution being "real" (did not happen) and the legality of this or that. But there is a true reality: If you stand at 31.777° North Latitude 35.205° East Longitude, you will be standing in the middle (approximately) of the Knesset in Jerusalem; the Capital of Israel. Without regard to anything else --- the reality of the physical world --- is that the national legislature of Israel (where laws are made for the sovereignty) stands indisputably in that location.

View attachment 100504
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Nothing was converted in 1948. The Jews from Europe simply acquired territory, inhabited by a majority of non-Jews through armed conquest, contrary to to main precept of the United Nations Charter.

Blame the UN for the acquired territory. Not European Jews.

 

[Hollie]

Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is confusing.

Jordan invaded the mandate of palestine

Where do you people get your bullshit? The Mandate left Palestine the day before.

(COMMENT)

As you all know, in February 1948 Memo on the Successor Government, served a number of different purposes; the three biggest being a "financial matter" and the other being a "governmental matter," and a matter of "independence through self-governance."

• The first was to shift the burden of the Defense Bond/War Loan relative to the Mandatory (UK) for the new Government of Palestine.

• The second was to establish, pursuant to Chapter XII --- Article 77a, the Successor Government to Palestine; as a legal entity and the authority responsible for its administration.
​

[/indent]

I've seen this argument before. First, since you are quibbling about the exact words:

• The "Mandate" did NOT leave Palestine. The Mandatory (UK) departed Palestine on mid-night 14/15 May.
​

There was simultaneously a political and governmental conversion process:

• The Mandate converted into a Trusteeship.
• The Mandatory converted into a Commission.
​

The final simultaneous development was the self-governing institution:

• As recommended, the allocated territorial plot for the Jewish State was converted into the Government of Israel (the reality of Jewish State).
​

Now all sorts of theoretical arguments about the 1947 Resolution being "real" (did not happen) and the legality of this or that. But there is a true reality: If you stand at 31.777° North Latitude 35.205° East Longitude, you will be standing in the middle (approximately) of the Knesset in Jerusalem; the Capital of Israel. Without regard to anything else --- the reality of the physical world --- is that the national legislature of Israel (where laws are made for the sovereignty) stands indisputably in that location.

View attachment 100504
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, a continuing and almost completed colonial project.

The only colonial project that was undertaken was by the Arab-Moslem squatters from Egypt, Syria and Lebanon, many of which were absentee landowners who sold the land to the Zionist Entity®. Whining in furtherance of your syndrome of IJH is pointless. look on the positive side, you can spend your life hating the Arab-Moslem invaders, also.

 

[Hollie]

Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is confusing.

Jordan invaded the mandate of palestine

Where do you people get your bullshit? The Mandate left Palestine the day before.

(COMMENT)

As you all know, in February 1948 Memo on the Successor Government, served a number of different purposes; the three biggest being a "financial matter" and the other being a "governmental matter," and a matter of "independence through self-governance."

• The first was to shift the burden of the Defense Bond/War Loan relative to the Mandatory (UK) for the new Government of Palestine.

• The second was to establish, pursuant to Chapter XII --- Article 77a, the Successor Government to Palestine; as a legal entity and the authority responsible for its administration.
​

[/indent]

I've seen this argument before. First, since you are quibbling about the exact words:

• The "Mandate" did NOT leave Palestine. The Mandatory (UK) departed Palestine on mid-night 14/15 May.
​

There was simultaneously a political and governmental conversion process:

• The Mandate converted into a Trusteeship.
• The Mandatory converted into a Commission.
​

The final simultaneous development was the self-governing institution:

• As recommended, the allocated territorial plot for the Jewish State was converted into the Government of Israel (the reality of Jewish State).
​

Now all sorts of theoretical arguments about the 1947 Resolution being "real" (did not happen) and the legality of this or that. But there is a true reality: If you stand at 31.777° North Latitude 35.205° East Longitude, you will be standing in the middle (approximately) of the Knesset in Jerusalem; the Capital of Israel. Without regard to anything else --- the reality of the physical world --- is that the national legislature of Israel (where laws are made for the sovereignty) stands indisputably in that location.

View attachment 100504
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Nothing was converted in 1948. The Jews from Europe simply acquired territory, inhabited by a majority of non-Jews through armed conquest, contrary to to main precept of the United Nations Charter.

Round up your homies from the madrassah and get your gee-had on.

 

[montelatici]

Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is confusing.

Jordan invaded the mandate of palestine

Where do you people get your bullshit? The Mandate left Palestine the day before.

(COMMENT)

As you all know, in February 1948 Memo on the Successor Government, served a number of different purposes; the three biggest being a "financial matter" and the other being a "governmental matter," and a matter of "independence through self-governance."

• The first was to shift the burden of the Defense Bond/War Loan relative to the Mandatory (UK) for the new Government of Palestine.

• The second was to establish, pursuant to Chapter XII --- Article 77a, the Successor Government to Palestine; as a legal entity and the authority responsible for its administration.
​

[/indent]

I've seen this argument before. First, since you are quibbling about the exact words:

• The "Mandate" did NOT leave Palestine. The Mandatory (UK) departed Palestine on mid-night 14/15 May.
​

There was simultaneously a political and governmental conversion process:

• The Mandate converted into a Trusteeship.
• The Mandatory converted into a Commission.
​

The final simultaneous development was the self-governing institution:

• As recommended, the allocated territorial plot for the Jewish State was converted into the Government of Israel (the reality of Jewish State).
​

Now all sorts of theoretical arguments about the 1947 Resolution being "real" (did not happen) and the legality of this or that. But there is a true reality: If you stand at 31.777° North Latitude 35.205° East Longitude, you will be standing in the middle (approximately) of the Knesset in Jerusalem; the Capital of Israel. Without regard to anything else --- the reality of the physical world --- is that the national legislature of Israel (where laws are made for the sovereignty) stands indisputably in that location.

View attachment 100504
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Nothing was converted in 1948. The Jews from Europe simply acquired territory, inhabited by a majority of non-Jews through armed conquest, contrary to to main precept of the United Nations Charter.

Blame the UN for the acquired territory. Not European Jews.

The European Jews are those that engaged in the armed invasion, not the UN.

 

[RoccoR]

Eloy, et al,

Yes, and we should stipulate the contention here.

Nonsense; English is my native language.

(COMMENT)

Like many things in politics, often what you think they said is not what was conveyed. No one explains this better than British Ambassador Lord Caradon (Author and sponsor of Res 242).

There are so many people that want to believe that the UN Security Council Resolution 242 requires this or that --- and the Argument has raged on for ≈ a half Century with no clear resolution.

In the half-Century following the Faisal–Weizmann Agreement is signed by Emir Faisal (representing the Arab Kingdom of Hejaz) and Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann for Arab–Jewish cooperation in the development of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, much in the world had changed. In that time, humanity went from the Barron von Richthofen (Fighter Pilot Ace-of-Aces), his Fokker Triplane and the Flying Circus to Neil Armstrong, Naval Aviator and Fighter Pilot, Test Pilot, Aerospace Engineer, Astronaut and the First man to Walk on the Moon. Over time, things changed.
​

So is the difference between the 1922 White Paper and the 1939 White Paper.

Excerpt From:
The Political History of Palestine under British Administration

52. In November, the mandatory Government invited members of the Jewish Agency to confer with them on this controversy. The outcome of the conversations was a letter addressed by the Prime Minister to Dr. Weizmann on the 13th February, 1931.. This letter, the Prime Minister said, “will fall to be read as the authoritative interpretation of the White Paper” on the matters with which it dealt. it contained, on the subject of the mandatory Power’s obligations to the Jewish National Home, a number of positive statements which had not appeared in the White Paper. Among them were the following:

“The obligation to facilitate Jewish immigration and to encourage close settlement by Jews on the land remains a positive obligation of the Mandate, and it can be fulfilled without prejudice to the rights and position of other sections of the population of Palestine.”

“The statement of policy of His Majesty’s Government did not imply a prohibition of acquisition of additional land by Jews.”

“His Majesty’s Government did not prescribe and do not contemplate any stoppage or prohibition of Jewish
immigration in any of its categories.”
​

One of the problems with taking a 1922 snapshot in time and the trying to interpret it in a 21st Century Context is that you miss all the discussion in between. In this case, the 1922 White Paper was not the Last word. A decade later, the 1931 Prime Minister made further the explanation. The concern, all through the 1930s was that IF they (Arabs) were accorded complete self-government, THEN they would obviously ignore the obligation to establish a National Home for the Jews.

Oddly enough, that concern and fear has been lurking in the unspoken political background for ≈ a Century.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

This is something that was a "view" nearly a century ago.

DOWNING STREET,
3rd June, 1922.

......These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned, are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917. Unauthorised 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 Delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine........ 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."

(COMMENT)

First, I ask you to review Posting # 1121, the reality.

Then I ask you a question: What's your Plan? What's your contingency if there is an outbreak of hostilities?

• Do you think that the contemporary Government of Israel (GOI) is just going to walk-up and hand the keys to Israel to you?
• What (very improbable) sets of events would have to occur that would induce the GOI to surrender their title and rights to self-government and sovereignty?
• How do you picture this unfolding?
​

I wonder what would happen if it were the UN that had to hand over its title and rights to self-government and sovereignty --- what would happen? Would we rain three kinds of hell upon them or four? Neither the UN or any other powerful body would: "intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter."

(RATIONAL CONSEQUENCE)

If the people of the only Jewish Nation in the world (8 Million = half the worlds Jewish population, including over 30,000 Americans from 36 different states) were to be put at the risk and invokes the inherent right of selfdefense (Chapter VII Art 51):

• What do you think the American domestic political backlash would be?
• Would America go to war with Israel over something America did and could have prevented?
• What does the Arab League have at risk if the peace and security of Israel was threatened?
• What assistance do you think Israel would ask of the Russian Federation should the US impose sanctions or embargoes?
• If it was your country, what lengths would you go to if you were the most civilized and developed country in the world?
​

IF you were the Emperor of the Earth, how do you put your plan into action?

Most Respectfully,
R

I ask you a question. Given that you now accept that the Christian and Muslims were lied to by the British at the beginning, and the British/UN clearly failed to protect the civil and religious rights of the the non-Jews as promised in the Mandate, why do you appear surprised and constantly criticize the non-Jews when they use violence against the Jews, in response to the violent conquest of the land they and their ancestors had lived on for thousands of years, on the part of the European Jews.

The Palestinians will never be compensated for their loss at the hands of the Jews, we all know that. My problem with you is that you criticize the Palestinians for doing what conquered people under occupation have always done. Have you ever criticized the Kurds when they carry out terrorist attacks in Iran or Turkey?

 

[Eloy]

Eloy, et al,

Yes, and we should stipulate the contention here.

Nonsense; English is my native language.

(COMMENT)

Like many things in politics, often what you think they said is not what was conveyed. No one explains this better than British Ambassador Lord Caradon (Author and sponsor of Res 242).

There are so many people that want to believe that the UN Security Council Resolution 242 requires this or that --- and the Argument has raged on for ≈ a half Century with no clear resolution.

In the half-Century following the Faisal–Weizmann Agreement is signed by Emir Faisal (representing the Arab Kingdom of Hejaz) and Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann for Arab–Jewish cooperation in the development of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, much in the world had changed. In that time, humanity went from the Barron von Richthofen (Fighter Pilot Ace-of-Aces), his Fokker Triplane and the Flying Circus to Neil Armstrong, Naval Aviator and Fighter Pilot, Test Pilot, Aerospace Engineer, Astronaut and the First man to Walk on the Moon. Over time, things changed.
​

So is the difference between the 1922 White Paper and the 1939 White Paper.

Excerpt From:
The Political History of Palestine under British Administration

52. In November, the mandatory Government invited members of the Jewish Agency to confer with them on this controversy. The outcome of the conversations was a letter addressed by the Prime Minister to Dr. Weizmann on the 13th February, 1931.. This letter, the Prime Minister said, “will fall to be read as the authoritative interpretation of the White Paper” on the matters with which it dealt. it contained, on the subject of the mandatory Power’s obligations to the Jewish National Home, a number of positive statements which had not appeared in the White Paper. Among them were the following:

“The obligation to facilitate Jewish immigration and to encourage close settlement by Jews on the land remains a positive obligation of the Mandate, and it can be fulfilled without prejudice to the rights and position of other sections of the population of Palestine.”

“The statement of policy of His Majesty’s Government did not imply a prohibition of acquisition of additional land by Jews.”

“His Majesty’s Government did not prescribe and do not contemplate any stoppage or prohibition of Jewish
immigration in any of its categories.”
​

One of the problems with taking a 1922 snapshot in time and the trying to interpret it in a 21st Century Context is that you miss all the discussion in between. In this case, the 1922 White Paper was not the Last word. A decade later, the 1931 Prime Minister made further the explanation. The concern, all through the 1930s was that IF they (Arabs) were accorded complete self-government, THEN they would obviously ignore the obligation to establish a National Home for the Jews.

Oddly enough, that concern and fear has been lurking in the unspoken political background for ≈ a Century.

Most Respectfully,
R

Forgive me but, unlike the Palestinians, I do not have half a century to chatter with Zionists about the meaning of simple English.

 

[montelatici]

Eloy, et al,

Yes, and we should stipulate the contention here.

Nonsense; English is my native language.

(COMMENT)

Like many things in politics, often what you think they said is not what was conveyed. No one explains this better than British Ambassador Lord Caradon (Author and sponsor of Res 242).

There are so many people that want to believe that the UN Security Council Resolution 242 requires this or that --- and the Argument has raged on for ≈ a half Century with no clear resolution.

In the half-Century following the Faisal–Weizmann Agreement is signed by Emir Faisal (representing the Arab Kingdom of Hejaz) and Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann for Arab–Jewish cooperation in the development of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, much in the world had changed. In that time, humanity went from the Barron von Richthofen (Fighter Pilot Ace-of-Aces), his Fokker Triplane and the Flying Circus to Neil Armstrong, Naval Aviator and Fighter Pilot, Test Pilot, Aerospace Engineer, Astronaut and the First man to Walk on the Moon. Over time, things changed.
​

So is the difference between the 1922 White Paper and the 1939 White Paper.

Excerpt From:
The Political History of Palestine under British Administration

52. In November, the mandatory Government invited members of the Jewish Agency to confer with them on this controversy. The outcome of the conversations was a letter addressed by the Prime Minister to Dr. Weizmann on the 13th February, 1931.. This letter, the Prime Minister said, “will fall to be read as the authoritative interpretation of the White Paper” on the matters with which it dealt. it contained, on the subject of the mandatory Power’s obligations to the Jewish National Home, a number of positive statements which had not appeared in the White Paper. Among them were the following:

“The obligation to facilitate Jewish immigration and to encourage close settlement by Jews on the land remains a positive obligation of the Mandate, and it can be fulfilled without prejudice to the rights and position of other sections of the population of Palestine.”

“The statement of policy of His Majesty’s Government did not imply a prohibition of acquisition of additional land by Jews.”

“His Majesty’s Government did not prescribe and do not contemplate any stoppage or prohibition of Jewish
immigration in any of its categories.”
​

One of the problems with taking a 1922 snapshot in time and the trying to interpret it in a 21st Century Context is that you miss all the discussion in between. In this case, the 1922 White Paper was not the Last word. A decade later, the 1931 Prime Minister made further the explanation. The concern, all through the 1930s was that IF they (Arabs) were accorded complete self-government, THEN they would obviously ignore the obligation to establish a National Home for the Jews.

Oddly enough, that concern and fear has been lurking in the unspoken political background for ≈ a Century.

Most Respectfully,
R

There you go, an illegal agreement* (Balfour Declaration) caused the British to prevent the Palestinian Christians and Muslims from achieving their goal of self-determination and a state of their own. So, now that you have done some research, research that I had done and used to dispute your assertion that the Palestinians were to blame for for not achieving statehood, was, like most of your assertions, bullshit. The British would not allow the Palestinian Christians and Muslims to create a state because there too many of them compared to the European Jew population in Palestine.

The Balfour Declaration was inconsistent with the terms of the Covenant of the League of Nations, hence, prior to signing the Covenant the British were bound to "procure its release" from the Balfour Declaration and were required to adhere to ARTICLE 22 which stated in part, "inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples " "Such peoples" were the Christian and Muslim natives who represented 95% of the population of Palestine at the time of the signing of the Covenant. "Such peoples" were not European Jews who wer inhabiting Europe.

*"Covenant of the League of Nations

ARTICLE 20.
The Members of the League severally agree that this Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.

In case any Member of the League shall, before becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps to procure its release from such obligations."

ARTICLE 22.
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant."

 

[Phoenall]

As early as 1922, the British were lying to the Christians and Muslims, even in letters to the Zionist Organization they kept up the charade.

• 
  "The Colonial Office to the Zionist Organisation.

DOWNING STREET,
3rd June, 1922.


......These apprehensions, so far as the Arabs are concerned, are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the Declaration favouring the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government on 2nd November, 1917. Unauthorised 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 Delegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine........ 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."

UK correspondence with Palestine Arab Delegation and Zionist Organization/British policy in Palestine: "Churchill White Paper" - UK documentation Cmd. 1700/Non-UN document (excerpts) (1 July 1922)

And who was it denied the LoN mandate and stated they would have nothing to do with it, leading to these letters being written. Once again you use cut and paste tactics out of context to alter the truth

Eloy, et al,

This is simply NOT true. This was an interpretation made by unskilled and uneducated (in the ways of politics and diplomacy) laymen.

You have been taken-in by Zionist propaganda so that you do not even believe what your own eyes tell you. The Israelis were told to withdraw from "territories occupied in the recent conflict". This, of course, includes the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza.

(COMMENT)

If you want to know and understand what the Resolutions actually says, GO TO THE SOURCE:

But while many sources correctly describe the wording and intent of Resolution 242, others have misrepresented it as requiring Israel to return to the pre-1967 lines – the armistice lines established after Israel’s War of Independence.

Such an interpretation was explicitly not the intention of the framers of 242, nor does the language of the resolution include any such requirement.

Lord Caradon (Hugh M. Foot) was the permanent representative of the United Kingdom to the United Nations, 1964-1970, and chief drafter of Resolution 242.

• Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, pg. 13, qtd. in Egypt’s Struggle for Peace: Continuity and Change, 1967-1977, Yoram Meital, pg. 49:

Much play has been made of the fact that we didn’t say “the” territories or “all the” territories. But that was deliberate. I myself knew very well the 1967 boundaries and if we had put in the “the” or “all the” that could only have meant that we wished to see the 1967 boundaries perpetuated in the form of a permanent frontier. This I was certainly not prepared to recommend.

• Journal of Palestine Studies, “An Interview with Lord Caradon,” Spring - Summer 1976, pgs 144-45:

Q. The basis for any settlement will be United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, of which you were the architect. Would you say there is a contradiction between the part of the resolution that stresses the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and that which calls for Israeli withdrawal from “occupied territories,” but not from “the occupied territories”?

A. I defend the resolution as it stands. What it states, as you know, is first the general principle of inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. That means that you can’t justify holding onto territory merely because you conquered it. We could have said: well, you go back to the 1967 line. But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation.

Had we said that you must go back to the 1967 line, which would have resulted if we had specified a retreat from all the occupied territories, we would have been wrong. In New York, what did we know about Tayyibe and Qalqilya? If we had attempted in New York to draw a new line, we would have been rather vague. So what we stated was the principle that you couldn’t hold territory because you conquered it, therefore there must be a withdrawal to – let’s read the words carefully – “secure and recognized boundaries.” They can only be secure if they are recognized. The boundaries have to be agreed; it’s only when you get agreement that you get security. I think that now people begin to realize what we had in mind – that security doesn’t come from arms, it doesn’t come from territory, it doesn’t come from geography, it doesn’t come from one side domination the other, it can only come from agreement and mutual respect and understanding.

Therefore, what we did, I think, was right; what the resolution said was right and I would stand by it. It needs to be added to now, of course. ... We didn’t attempt to deal with [the questions of the Palestinians and of Jerusalem] then, but merely to state the general principles of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. We meant that the occupied territories could not be held merely because they were occupied, but we deliberately did not say that the old line, where the troops happened to be on that particular night many years ago, was an ideal demarcation line.

• MacNeil/Lehrer Report, March 30, 1978:

We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the “the” in, we did not say “all the territories” deliberately. We all knew that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... . We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever.

• Daily Star (Beirut), June 12, 1974. Qtd. in Myths and Facts, Leonard J. Davis, pg. 48:

It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of 4 June 1967 because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places the soldiers of each side happened to be the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them and I think we were right not to ...

• Interview on Kol Israel radio, February 1973, qtd. on Web site of Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

Q. This matter of the (definite) article which is there in French and is missing in English, is that really significant?

A. The purposes are perfectly clear, the principle is stated in the preamble, the necessity for withdrawal is stated in the operative section. And then the essential phrase which is not sufficiently recognized is that withdrawal should take place to secure and recognized boundaries, and these words were very carefully chosen: they have to be secure and they have to be recognized. They will not be secure unless they are recognized. And that is why one has to work for agreement. This is essential. I would defend absolutely what we did. It was not for us to lay down exactly where the border should be. I know the 1967 border very well. It is not a satisfactory border, it is where troops had to stop in 1947, just where they happened to be that night, that is not a permanent boundary...

​

While there were more that 2 dozen Palestinian Terrorist Attacks by Jihadist and Fedayeen, in the year previous to the Arab incited 1967 Six Day War, there were the embryonic development of some serious incidents:

• Apr 25, 1966 - Explosions placed by Militants wounded two civilians and damaged three houses in moshav Beit Yosef, in the Beit She'an Valley.
• May 16, 1966 - Two Israelis were killed when their jeep hit a terrorist landmine, north of the Sea of Galilee and south of Almagor. Tracks led into Syria.
• July 14, 1966 - Militants attacked a house in Kfar Yuval, in the North.
• July 19, 1966 - Militants infiltrated into Moshav Margaliot on the northern border and planted nine explosive charges.
• Oct 27, 1966 - A civilian was wounded by an explosive charge on the railroad tracks to Jerusalem.

Back in the day, even then, no one wanted another failed Arab State in the Region; politically, economically, or commercially interactive. And it is still that way today. And in part, while the main reason to support the Jewish National Home/State of Israel, was the preservation and protection of a complete culture, there was --- lurking in the background --- that even then, Jihadist, Deadly Fedayeen, Hostile Insurgent, Radicalized Islamist, and Asymmetric Fighters were going to become a big problem (with or without Israel). Better to preserve Israel then to let the Radical Islamist have they way and eventually destroy it.

Most Respectfully,
R

I went to the source; the document itself. I have no interest in wasting paragraphs on parsing simple English with someone who will not understand such as yourself.

And what did it actually say, was it what I posted as a reminder that many people read the resolution wrongly.

By the way the source is the authors and what they say it means is what it means, not what you or any other jumped up neo nazi stooge says it means

 

[Phoenall]

Eloy, et al,

Yes, this is a very important point. --- It is a very important point.

(QUESTIONS)

•• When is a war over?

** In 1967, the Six Day War had (still in place) the 1949 Armistice Lines left over from a War that was still not over.

•• What war are you talking about? AND! Who were the parties to the war?

(COMMENT)

This is my opportunity to learn something from you. My understanding was:

•• Whether you talk about the 1948-49 War of Independence, the 1967 Six-Day War, or the 1973 Yom Kipper War, there were several "parties to the conflict" (somebody was at war with somebody). There was no party to any of the conflicts or an Armistice, or a treaty, pertaining to any party know as the "Palestinians" or any variation of that name.
•• Relative to the War most related to the Gaza Strip, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Egyptians. The 1979 Peace Treaty established "[t]he permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary." This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.
•• Relative to the War most related to the West Bank, the conflict and subsequent treaty was between the Israelis and the Jordanians. The 1994 Peace Treaty established "[t]he international boundary between Jordan and Israel is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I (a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and coordinates specified therein." This Treaty terminated and replaced the Armistice Agreement in accordance with Article XII(2) of the Armistice.
​

All differences and disputes relative to the conflict between Israel and the Arab States of Egypt and Jordan have been resolved. Permanent international borders have been established.

•• Israel was not at War with the Arab Palestinians.
•• Israel did not have an Armistice with the Arab Palestinians.
•• Israel neither seized, conquered, occupied or acquired anything from the Arab Palestinian.

•∆• Sovereign territory from the Jordanians - YES!
•∆• A Military Governorship from Egypt - YES!
•§• Nothing from any other sovereign or independent power pertaining to the West Bank or Gaza Strip.
​

So when you say "such land was to be returned to the inhabitants once the war (in this case the Arab-Israeli War of 1967) was over;" what meaning does that have?

Nothing was taking from the inhabitance. If you check, you will find that on 31 July 1988, under the Jordanian Disengagement from the West Bank, King Hussein announced the severance of all administrative and legal ties with the occupied West Bank. Accordingly, electoral districts were redrawn to represent East Bank constituencies only. This effectively abandon the West Bank to the Israelis; absent any other self-governing institution available.

Immediately following the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence, Egypt took control and placed a military administration over the newly formed Gaza Strip. Israel, after the 1967 Six-Day War, relieved the Egyptians of the Gaza Strip. Under a series of agreements known as the Oslo accords signed between 1994 and 1999, Israel transferred to the (new) Palestinian Authority (PA) much of the security and civilian responsibility for the Gaza Strip as well as the West Bank (Areas and Authority defined by the Agreements). Negotiations to determine the permanent status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip stalled in 2001, after which the area erupted into what became known as the Intifada. Neither of the two Sides activated the dispute resolution process. The two sides did not resume (in good faith) the Permanent Status negotiations. One side demands preconditions before talks resume and the other requires that no preconditions before talks resume.

Most Respectfully,
R

I am repeating what the United Nations Security Council agreed about the recent (1967) war in Resolution 242 where Israel is required to remove all its military to the 1967 borders. I thought you knew.

Israel was told to give up "territories" captured in the war, but not "all the territories". The language was deliberately ambiguous. In fact by giving up the Sinai, Israel has already complied.

You have been taken-in by Zionist propaganda so that you do not even believe what your own eyes tell you. The Israelis were told to withdraw from "territories occupied in the recent conflict". This, of course, includes the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza.

Once again I repeat that the language of the resolution was deliberately left ambiguous. ...

Nonsense; English is my native language.

And you are butchering it to make a point that is not valid. You are adding words and context that were never intended to be there. It does not say all the territories as you claim it says territories.

 

[Phoenall]

Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is confusing.

Jordan invaded the mandate of palestine

Where do you people get your bullshit? The Mandate left Palestine the day before.

(COMMENT)

As you all know, in February 1948 Memo on the Successor Government, served a number of different purposes; the three biggest being a "financial matter" and the other being a "governmental matter," and a matter of "independence through self-governance."

• The first was to shift the burden of the Defense Bond/War Loan relative to the Mandatory (UK) for the new Government of Palestine.

• The second was to establish, pursuant to Chapter XII --- Article 77a, the Successor Government to Palestine; as a legal entity and the authority responsible for its administration.
​

[/indent]

I've seen this argument before. First, since you are quibbling about the exact words:

• The "Mandate" did NOT leave Palestine. The Mandatory (UK) departed Palestine on mid-night 14/15 May.
​

There was simultaneously a political and governmental conversion process:

• The Mandate converted into a Trusteeship.
• The Mandatory converted into a Commission.
​

The final simultaneous development was the self-governing institution:

• As recommended, the allocated territorial plot for the Jewish State was converted into the Government of Israel (the reality of Jewish State).
​

Now all sorts of theoretical arguments about the 1947 Resolution being "real" (did not happen) and the legality of this or that. But there is a true reality: If you stand at 31.777° North Latitude 35.205° East Longitude, you will be standing in the middle (approximately) of the Knesset in Jerusalem; the Capital of Israel. Without regard to anything else --- the reality of the physical world --- is that the national legislature of Israel (where laws are made for the sovereignty) stands indisputably in that location.

View attachment 100504
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Nothing was converted in 1948. The Jews from Europe simply acquired territory, inhabited by a majority of non-Jews through armed conquest, contrary to to main precept of the United Nations Charter.

Would that be the same Jews that you Roman Catholics stole from Israel and took to Europe as your slaves ?

 

[Phoenall]

Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is confusing.

Jordan invaded the mandate of palestine

Where do you people get your bullshit? The Mandate left Palestine the day before.

(COMMENT)

As you all know, in February 1948 Memo on the Successor Government, served a number of different purposes; the three biggest being a "financial matter" and the other being a "governmental matter," and a matter of "independence through self-governance."

• The first was to shift the burden of the Defense Bond/War Loan relative to the Mandatory (UK) for the new Government of Palestine.

• The second was to establish, pursuant to Chapter XII --- Article 77a, the Successor Government to Palestine; as a legal entity and the authority responsible for its administration.
​

[/indent]

I've seen this argument before. First, since you are quibbling about the exact words:

• The "Mandate" did NOT leave Palestine. The Mandatory (UK) departed Palestine on mid-night 14/15 May.
​

There was simultaneously a political and governmental conversion process:

• The Mandate converted into a Trusteeship.
• The Mandatory converted into a Commission.
​

The final simultaneous development was the self-governing institution:

• As recommended, the allocated territorial plot for the Jewish State was converted into the Government of Israel (the reality of Jewish State).
​

Now all sorts of theoretical arguments about the 1947 Resolution being "real" (did not happen) and the legality of this or that. But there is a true reality: If you stand at 31.777° North Latitude 35.205° East Longitude, you will be standing in the middle (approximately) of the Knesset in Jerusalem; the Capital of Israel. Without regard to anything else --- the reality of the physical world --- is that the national legislature of Israel (where laws are made for the sovereignty) stands indisputably in that location.

View attachment 100504
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Indeed, a continuing and almost completed colonial project.

NO as the arab muslim colonists are now being evicted and sent back home, much to your dismay

 

[Phoenall]

Phoenall, P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, this is confusing.

Jordan invaded the mandate of palestine

Where do you people get your bullshit? The Mandate left Palestine the day before.

(COMMENT)

As you all know, in February 1948 Memo on the Successor Government, served a number of different purposes; the three biggest being a "financial matter" and the other being a "governmental matter," and a matter of "independence through self-governance."

• The first was to shift the burden of the Defense Bond/War Loan relative to the Mandatory (UK) for the new Government of Palestine.

• The second was to establish, pursuant to Chapter XII --- Article 77a, the Successor Government to Palestine; as a legal entity and the authority responsible for its administration.
​

[/indent]

I've seen this argument before. First, since you are quibbling about the exact words:

• The "Mandate" did NOT leave Palestine. The Mandatory (UK) departed Palestine on mid-night 14/15 May.
​

There was simultaneously a political and governmental conversion process:

• The Mandate converted into a Trusteeship.
• The Mandatory converted into a Commission.
​

The final simultaneous development was the self-governing institution:

• As recommended, the allocated territorial plot for the Jewish State was converted into the Government of Israel (the reality of Jewish State).
​

Now all sorts of theoretical arguments about the 1947 Resolution being "real" (did not happen) and the legality of this or that. But there is a true reality: If you stand at 31.777° North Latitude 35.205° East Longitude, you will be standing in the middle (approximately) of the Knesset in Jerusalem; the Capital of Israel. Without regard to anything else --- the reality of the physical world --- is that the national legislature of Israel (where laws are made for the sovereignty) stands indisputably in that location.

View attachment 100504
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Nothing was converted in 1948. The Jews from Europe simply acquired territory, inhabited by a majority of non-Jews through armed conquest, contrary to to main precept of the United Nations Charter.

Blame the UN for the acquired territory. Not European Jews.

The European Jews are those that engaged in the armed invasion, not the UN.

Not the Jews that your Roman Catholics stole and transported as slaves to Europe took part in any armed invasion. That was the arab muslims once again

 

[Phoenall]

Eloy, et al,

Yes, and we should stipulate the contention here.

Nonsense; English is my native language.

(COMMENT)

Like many things in politics, often what you think they said is not what was conveyed. No one explains this better than British Ambassador Lord Caradon (Author and sponsor of Res 242).

There are so many people that want to believe that the UN Security Council Resolution 242 requires this or that --- and the Argument has raged on for ≈ a half Century with no clear resolution.

In the half-Century following the Faisal–Weizmann Agreement is signed by Emir Faisal (representing the Arab Kingdom of Hejaz) and Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann for Arab–Jewish cooperation in the development of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, much in the world had changed. In that time, humanity went from the Barron von Richthofen (Fighter Pilot Ace-of-Aces), his Fokker Triplane and the Flying Circus to Neil Armstrong, Naval Aviator and Fighter Pilot, Test Pilot, Aerospace Engineer, Astronaut and the First man to Walk on the Moon. Over time, things changed.
​

So is the difference between the 1922 White Paper and the 1939 White Paper.

Excerpt From:
The Political History of Palestine under British Administration

52. In November, the mandatory Government invited members of the Jewish Agency to confer with them on this controversy. The outcome of the conversations was a letter addressed by the Prime Minister to Dr. Weizmann on the 13th February, 1931.. This letter, the Prime Minister said, “will fall to be read as the authoritative interpretation of the White Paper” on the matters with which it dealt. it contained, on the subject of the mandatory Power’s obligations to the Jewish National Home, a number of positive statements which had not appeared in the White Paper. Among them were the following:

“The obligation to facilitate Jewish immigration and to encourage close settlement by Jews on the land remains a positive obligation of the Mandate, and it can be fulfilled without prejudice to the rights and position of other sections of the population of Palestine.”

“The statement of policy of His Majesty’s Government did not imply a prohibition of acquisition of additional land by Jews.”

“His Majesty’s Government did not prescribe and do not contemplate any stoppage or prohibition of Jewish
immigration in any of its categories.”
​

One of the problems with taking a 1922 snapshot in time and the trying to interpret it in a 21st Century Context is that you miss all the discussion in between. In this case, the 1922 White Paper was not the Last word. A decade later, the 1931 Prime Minister made further the explanation. The concern, all through the 1930s was that IF they (Arabs) were accorded complete self-government, THEN they would obviously ignore the obligation to establish a National Home for the Jews.

Oddly enough, that concern and fear has been lurking in the unspoken political background for ≈ a Century.

Most Respectfully,
R

Forgive me but, unlike the Palestinians, I do not have half a century to chatter with Zionists about the meaning of simple English.

Because you know that it is beyond your intelligence, so look for a back door exit