More History Before 1967

[P F Tinmore]

So you type in '1948 occupied palestine' in google, then you give me the link to the search results ?

That's weak.

Show me an article or document that shows all of Israel to be occupied, now, in 2013. Or at the very least in this century

Many of those results are from the last few years.

https://www.google.com/search?q=+++...08,d.dmg&fp=9b2b7d228cccac7c&biw=1280&bih=851

And the ducking continues. Show me some sort of document that proves yuour claim that all of ISrael is occupied 3

I have...several times...in great detail.

You need to keep up.

 

[toastman]

No, you havent.

Let me try again. Show me some sort of document or article that suggests all of ISrael is occupied and Israel has no land

 

[P F Tinmore]

No, you havent.

Let me try again. Show me some sort of document or article that suggests all of ISrael is occupied and Israel has no land

Let me try again. I have already documented where Israel came out of the 1948 war with no land.

Nobody has posted any documents to supersede that.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

There are some things I know. But, there are an infinite number of things of which I know nothing.

Examples: Nonviolent Revolution Veterans of the Civil Rights Movement -- Nonviolent Resistance, Reform, & Revolution

Good post, thanks.

BTW, What would be an appropriate and effective way for the Palestinians to resist the occupation?

(COMMENT)

Non-violent resistance is something I know very little about (lack of imagination). I can only tell you about countermeasures relative to violent protest, armed resistance, and insurgency campaigns.

Anything I could contribute would merely be a regurgitation of famous leaders like Thoreau, Tolstoy, Gandhi, and King.

• Nonviolent resistance (or nonviolent action) comprises the practice of applying power to achieve socio-political goals through symbolic protests, economic or political noncooperation, civil disobedience and other methods, without the use of violence. It has the guiding principle of nonviolence.
  
• Passive resistance has a similar meaning, implying resistance by inertia or non-energetic compliance, as opposed to resistance by active antagonism.

Like other strategies for social change, nonviolent action can appear in various forms and degrees. It may include, for example, such varied forms as information wars, protest art, lobbying, tax refusal, boycotts or sanctions, legal/diplomatic wrestling, material sabotage, underground railroads, principled refusal of awards/honours, picketing, vigiling, leafletting, and/or general strikes.

Many leftist and socialist movements have hoped to invoke "peaceful revolution" by organizing enough strikers to completely paralyze their targets. With the state and corporate apparatus thus crippled, the workers would be able to re-organize society along radically different lines. This philosophy is favored by the legendary labor union Industrial Workers of the World, whose members are committed to organizing "One Big Union" of all workers who would launch the general strike that would end capitalism forever. There is also a current dedicated to revolutionary nonviolence within the Socialist Party USA.

Some scholars of nonviolence, arguing that many movements have pragmatically adopted the methods of nonviolent action as an effective way to achieve social or political goals, distinguish the methods of nonviolent action from the moral stance of nonviolence or non-harm towards others.

SOURCE: Nonviolent resistance - Who or What is Nonviolent resistance? Find out more

The Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) being used to support the Palestinian position is Nonviolent resistance.

Most Respectfully,
R

There has been a lot of non violent resistance. However, the Lame Stream Media usually ignores it.

The invisibility of Palestinian Nonviolent Resistance in the New York Times

The fact that thousands of Palestinians and hundreds of Israelis are together employing nonviolent tactics similar to those of the U.S. civil rights movement and the South African anti-Apartheid movement would come as surprising and welcome news to most Americans. Americans are largely unaware of the struggling but vibrant grassroots nonviolent movement in Palestine, because the U.S. corporate media prefers a simple, flawed story of Palestinian terrorist attacks and Israeli retaliation.

In the U.S. media, Palestinians generally aren’t allowed to speak for themselves or to articulate their historical narrative. Israelis, however, are permitted to speak, to explain the Israeli experience and even to explain about Palestinians. As a result, the Israeli story is known in the U.S. while Palestinians are dehumanized.

The reporting by The New York Times, often cited as the standard for U.S. media, typifies the problem. The Times publishes daily news articles on Israel/Palestine, including countless articles about armed Palestinian resistance. However, the New York Times and the U.S. media more generally almost never report on what 99.5% of Palestinians have done every day of their lives for the last 38 years — nonviolently resist Israeli occupation.

The invisibility of Palestinian Nonviolent Resistance in the New York Times | The Electronic Intifada

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Interesting!

Is defending your country a religious, political, or ideological goal?

(COMMENT)

Defending a country is to defend and protect sovereignty.

I thought self defense was a legal right.

(COMMENT)

Yes, as a matter of fact, the right of self-defense is a legal right under Chapter VII, Article 51, ("Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.")

Israel is a member of the UN; and has been since 1949. It has a right to self-defense. The State of Palestine has tentative recognition since 2012. It has a right to self-defense, accept that is was in an "Occupied Condition" since before statehood.

BTW, nationals of an occupying power are not "civilians."

(COMMENT)

This is incorrect.

While it can be argued that they do not fall into the status of GCIV Protected Persons because they are not in the hands of a Party to the conflict, but they protected from intentionally directing attacks under the International Criminal Code.

(b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

(i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such
or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;​

SOURCE:
http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/ADD16852-AEE9-4757-ABE7-9CDC7CF02886/283503/RomeStatutEng1.pdf
........................................... OR ........................................
Web site of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

So no, they are not terrorists.

(COMMENT)

Internationally, it is difficult to establish terrorism, except by deed. But in the case of Hamas, a government and excepted terrorist organization, there is a second set of crimes to apply.

For the purpose of paragraph 1, “act of aggression” means the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, in accordance with United Nations General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, qualify as an act of aggression:

(a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof;

(g) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein.​

And, of course,

To refrain from organizing, instigating, facilitating, participating in, financing, encouraging or tolerating terrorist activities and to take appropriate practical measures to ensure that our respective territories are not used for terrorist installations or training camps, or for the preparation or organization of terrorist acts intended to be committed against other States or their citizens.

SOURCE: United Nations General Assembly Adopts Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy - United Nations Action to Counter Terrorism

Israel, as a member of the UN, has a responsibility to "step-up national efforts and bilateral, sub-regional, regional and international co-operation, as appropriate, to improve border and customs controls, in order to prevent and detect the movement of terrorists and to prevent and detect the illicit traffic in, inter alia, small arms and light weapons, conventional ammunition and explosives, nuclear, chemical, biological or radiological weapons and materials, while recognizing that States may require assistance to that effect."

There is no question that the Hostile Arab/Palestinian, has a past history of terrorist activity. It cannot be the case that this is questionably.

HAMAS has a paramilitary arm, the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, which, beginning in the 1990s, has conducted many anti-Israeli attacks in Israel and the Palestinian territories. These have included large-scale terrorist bombings against Israeli civilian targets, as well as small-arms attacks, improvised roadside explosives, and the launching of rockets into Israel.

SOURCE: HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement) - Terrorist Groups

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

No, you havent.

Let me try again. Show me some sort of document or article that suggests all of ISrael is occupied and Israel has no land

Let me try again. I have already documented where Israel came out of the 1948 war with no land.

Nobody has posted any documents to supersede that.

Still nothing, eh??

You failed miserably

 

[P F Tinmore]

No, you havent.

Let me try again. Show me some sort of document or article that suggests all of ISrael is occupied and Israel has no land

Let me try again. I have already documented where Israel came out of the 1948 war with no land.

Nobody has posted any documents to supersede that.

Still nothing, eh??

You failed miserably

My documentation stands until someone posts something to supersede it.

 

[toastman]

Let me try again. I have already documented where Israel came out of the 1948 war with no land.

Nobody has posted any documents to supersede that.

Still nothing, eh??

You failed miserably

My documentation stands until someone posts something to supersede it.

Except you posted nothing

Funny how you make it seem like you proved your point that Israel has no land or civilians. A member of the U.N has no land or civilians hahah
Look at Roccos posts above, he did a way better job then me at making you look like a fool. Would love to see your response to that


Also, care to provide any documentation from this century, or maybe an article, or even a current map that proves your claims ? Anything??? I would love to see something that suggests cities like Haifa and Tel - Aviv for example are under occupation. IF this were true, surely there would be some sort of article to prove it, no ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Interesting!

Is defending your country a religious, political, or ideological goal?

(COMMENT)

Defending a country is to defend and protect sovereignty.

I thought self defense was a legal right.

(COMMENT)

Yes, as a matter of fact, the right of self-defense is a legal right under Chapter VII, Article 51, ("Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.")

Israel is a member of the UN; and has been since 1949. It has a right to self-defense. The State of Palestine has tentative recognition since 2012. It has a right to self-defense, accept that is was in an "Occupied Condition" since before statehood.

That may not be true or even relevant.

An occupation may deny the exercise of rights but it does not negate them.

The LoN determined that Palestine was a newly created state. After the mandate left Palestine the Palestinians declared independence from the mandate inside its existing international borders. Five states recognized the independent state of Palestine. The UN was notified of this declaration.

The following year the UN divided Palestine into three areas of occupation. Palestine was not officially occupied until after its declaration of independence.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Still nothing, eh??

You failed miserably

My documentation stands until someone posts something to supersede it.

Except you posted nothing

Funny how you make it seem like you proved your point that Israel has no land or civilians. A member of the U.N has no land or civilians hahah
Look at Roccos posts above, he did a way better job then me at making you look like a fool. Would love to see your response to that


Also, care to provide any documentation from this century, or maybe an article, or even a current map that proves your claims ? Anything??? I would love to see something that suggests cities like Haifa and Tel - Aviv for example are under occupation. IF this were true, surely there would be some sort of article to prove it, no ?

Rocco posted nothing to refute my claims.

You must have missed the pages of hits on the Google search saying 1948 occupied Palestine.

https://www.google.com/search?q=+++...08,d.dmg&fp=9b2b7d228cccac7c&biw=1280&bih=851

 

[toastman]

My documentation stands until someone posts something to supersede it.

Except you posted nothing

Funny how you make it seem like you proved your point that Israel has no land or civilians. A member of the U.N has no land or civilians hahah
Look at Roccos posts above, he did a way better job then me at making you look like a fool. Would love to see your response to that


Also, care to provide any documentation from this century, or maybe an article, or even a current map that proves your claims ? Anything??? I would love to see something that suggests cities like Haifa and Tel - Aviv for example are under occupation. IF this were true, surely there would be some sort of article to prove it, no ?

Rocco posted nothing to refute my claims.

You must have missed the pages of hits on the Google search saying 1948 occupied Palestine.

https://www.google.com/search?q=+++...08,d.dmg&fp=9b2b7d228cccac7c&biw=1280&bih=851

LOL and what does that prove ??? You probably didn't even read them...

I've searched the internet and could not find anything to back up your idiotic claims
Like I said, if those claims were true, surely there would be some sort of unbiased source to prove it.

However, those sources don't exist.

and Rocco did refute your claims concerning what he quoted from your post, and you know it too. But you are a sore loser and cannot admit it.

What I find funny is your continuous claims that you have proved your claims.

Let me make it easier for you, show me an article about Israel or Palestine that back up your claims

 

[toastman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

Hmm, nothing in here to back up your claims



State of Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Weird, nothing in here either

Surely if your claims were true, they would be mentioned in the links I just posted??

 

[P F Tinmore]

Except you posted nothing

Funny how you make it seem like you proved your point that Israel has no land or civilians. A member of the U.N has no land or civilians hahah
Look at Roccos posts above, he did a way better job then me at making you look like a fool. Would love to see your response to that


Also, care to provide any documentation from this century, or maybe an article, or even a current map that proves your claims ? Anything??? I would love to see something that suggests cities like Haifa and Tel - Aviv for example are under occupation. IF this were true, surely there would be some sort of article to prove it, no ?

Rocco posted nothing to refute my claims.

You must have missed the pages of hits on the Google search saying 1948 occupied Palestine.

https://www.google.com/search?q=+++...08,d.dmg&fp=9b2b7d228cccac7c&biw=1280&bih=851

LOL and what does that prove ??? You probably didn't even read them...

I've searched the internet and could not find anything to back up your idiotic claims
Like I said, if those claims were true, surely there would be some sort of unbiased source to prove it.

However, those sources don't exist.

and Rocco did refute your claims concerning what he quoted from your post, and you know it too. But you are a sore loser and cannot admit it.

What I find funny is your continuous claims that you have proved your claims.

Let me make it easier for you, show me an article about Israel or Palestine that back up your claims

What did I claim that Rocco proved not to be true?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

He is correct. At the implementation of the Armistice, the Israelis had assumed control over more area than the original GA Resolution 181(II) has allotted.

No, you havent.

Let me try again. Show me some sort of document or article that suggests all of ISrael is occupied and Israel has no land

Let me try again. I have already documented where Israel came out of the 1948 war with no land.

Nobody has posted any documents to supersede that.

If the present structure of Israel did not conform to those conditions, two courses were open to the Assembly: either to make the membership of Israel dependent upon acceptance of the original recommendations of the United Nations, or to admit it notwithstanding its failure to comply with those recommendations, thereby cancelling or revoking them. Should the Assembly adopt the latter course, it must be fully aware of the implications of such a course for future decisions of a similar nature and of its effect on the general situation in the Near East, for the present structure of Israel did not in fact conform to the wishes expressed in the previous resolutions of the Assembly; it was not the same as the Jewish State, the existence of which had been sanctioned by that body in November 1947 and for which additional requirements had been laid down in the General Assembly resolution of 11 December 1948 (194 (III)). The differences were fundamental and could not be dismissed or condoned as secondary factors. Admission of Israel notwithstanding those essential and highly significant differences would be tantamount to the revocation of the previous Assembly decisions, the frustration of the human aspirations expressed by the highest spokesmen of great religions and the violation of the deepest spiritual sentiments of a large portion of mankind.

SOURCE: A/AC.24/SR.45 of 5 May 1949

Having received and considered the application of Israel for membership in the United Nations,1/

1. Decides in its judgement that Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter, and accordingly,

2. Recommends to the General Assembly that it admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.

Having received the report of the Security Council on the application of Israel for membership in the United Nations,1/

Noting that, in the judgment of the Security Council, Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter,

Noting that the Security Council has recommended to the General Assembly that it admit Israel to membership in the United Nations,

Noting furthermore the declaration by the State of Israel that it "unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter and undertakes to honour them from the day when it becomes a Member of the United Nations",2/

Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,

The General Assembly,

Acting in discharge of its functions under Article 4 of the Charter and rule 125 of its rules of procedure,

1. Decides that Israel is a peace-loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations;

2. Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.

SOURCE: A/RES/273 (III) of 11 May 1949

When Israel originally requested admission, the allotment was outline in Annex A (Map Sheet) and Part II - Section B of the of GA Resolution of 181(II). However, by the time the UN Security Council and General Assembly began to reach a consensus, the Israel Defense Force had expanded the control. The area was bigger than that originally partitioned out.

It was not until the Treaties and the Armistices that boundaries were established. It makes no difference, because the State of Palestine is based on the boundaries of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as observed in December, 2012. It becomes interesting history, but not relevant to today.

In May 1948, when the Arabs attacked, the Resolution 181(II), and Annex A, boundaries applied. The advance of the Arab Armies constituted Aggression and the defense of Israel was pursuant to UN Charter Chapter VII, Article 51 (Self-Defense). Since that time, the boundaries expanded.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

Rocco, thanks for the link.

A/AC.24/SR.45 of 5 May 1949

The State of Israel, in its present form, directly contravened the previous recommendations of the United Nations in at least three important respects: in its attitude on the problem of Arab refugees, on the delimitation of its territorial boundaries, and on the question of Jerusalem.

The United Nations had certainly not intended that the Jewish State should rid itself of its Arab citizens. On the contrary, section C of part I of the Assembly's 1947 resolution had explicitly provided guarantees of minority rights in each of the two States. For example, it had prohibited the expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State except for public purposes, and then only upon payment of full compensation. Yet the fact was that 90 per cent of the Arab population of Israel had been driven outside its boundaries by military operations, had been forced to seek refuge in neighbouring Arab territories, had been reduced to misery and destitution, and had been prevented by Israel from returning to their homes. Their homes and property had been seized and were being used by thousands of European Jewish immigrants.

If you read the entire document you will have only one question.

Why did they accept fucking Israel as a member of the UN?

Seriously, it does not make any sense.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What is the base question? I'm confused.

What did I claim that Rocco proved not to be true?

(COMMENT)

How does this relate to the basic issue? Is there some claim by the Palestinians that relates to this issue?

“The territories situated between the Green Line [...] and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, these were therefore occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power. Subsequent events in these territories [...] have done nothing to alter this situation. All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power.” (see A/ES-10/273)​

But we already knew that.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

What is the base question? I'm confused.

What did I claim that Rocco proved not to be true?

(COMMENT)

How does this relate to the basic issue? Is there some claim by the Palestinians that relates to this issue?

“The territories situated between the Green Line [...] and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, these were therefore occupied territories in which Israel had the status of occupying Power. Subsequent events in these territories [...] have done nothing to alter this situation. All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power.” (see A/ES-10/273)​

But we already knew that.

Most Respectfully,
R

and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate

What does all of that mean? The mandate had no borders. After the mandate left, Palestine was still there and its international borders remained unchanged.

It looks like someone is trying to confuse the issue.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

He is correct. At the implementation of the Armistice, the Israelis had assumed control over more area than the original GA Resolution 181(II) has allotted.

No, you havent.

Let me try again. Show me some sort of document or article that suggests all of ISrael is occupied and Israel has no land

Let me try again. I have already documented where Israel came out of the 1948 war with no land.

Nobody has posted any documents to supersede that.

Having received the report of the Security Council on the application of Israel for membership in the United Nations,1/

Noting that, in the judgment of the Security Council, Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter,

Noting that the Security Council has recommended to the General Assembly that it admit Israel to membership in the United Nations,

Noting furthermore the declaration by the State of Israel that it "unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter and undertakes to honour them from the day when it becomes a Member of the United Nations",2/

Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 3/ and 11 December 1948 4/ and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel 5/ before the ad hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,

The General Assembly,

Acting in discharge of its functions under Article 4 of the Charter and rule 125 of its rules of procedure,

1. Decides that Israel is a peace-loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations;

2. Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations.

SOURCE: A/RES/273 (III) of 11 May 1949

When Israel originally requested admission, the allotment was outline in Annex A (Map Sheet) and Part II - Section B of the of GA Resolution of 181(II). However, by the time the UN Security Council and General Assembly began to reach a consensus, the Israel Defense Force had expanded the control. The area was bigger than that originally partitioned out.

It was not until the Treaties and the Armistices that boundaries were established. It makes no difference, because the State of Palestine is based on the boundaries of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as observed in December, 2012. It becomes interesting history, but not relevant to today.

In May 1948, when the Arabs attacked, the Resolution 181(II), and Annex A, boundaries applied. The advance of the Arab Armies constituted Aggression and the defense of Israel was pursuant to UN Charter Chapter VII, Article 51 (Self-Defense). Since that time, the boundaries expanded.

Most Respectfully,
R

the Israel Defense Force had expanded the control.

Indeed, made its occupied territory larger.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

thanks for the link.

(COMMENT)

No problem. I use to live with this stuff.

If you read the entire document you will have only one question.

• 
  Q:
• Why did they accept fucking Israel as a member of the UN?

Seriously, it does not make any sense.

(COMMENT)

It makes perfect sense if you understand and accept the basic imperative.

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;

SOURCE: San Remo Convention - World War I Document Archive

The imperative was to establish the Jewish National Home. It wasn't to apportion the land based on some demographic. The Western Powers knew that once a Jewish State was established [GA Resolution 181(II) and implemented by the Security Council Resolution 69] that Jewish demographics would increase by huge numbers.

The Allied Powers saw a need, and sometimes, the protection of a minority culture is more important than that of a enemy population under mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

thanks for the link.

(COMMENT)

No problem. I use to live with this stuff.

If you read the entire document you will have only one question.

• 
  Q:
• Why did they accept fucking Israel as a member of the UN?

Seriously, it does not make any sense.

(COMMENT)

It makes perfect sense if you understand and accept the basic imperative.

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connexion of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;

SOURCE: San Remo Convention - World War I Document Archive

The imperative was to establish the Jewish National Home. It wasn't to apportion the land based on some demographic. The Western Powers knew that once a Jewish State was established [GA Resolution 181(II) and implemented by the Security Council Resolution 69] that Jewish demographics would increase by huge numbers.

The Allied Powers saw a need, and sometimes, the protection of a minority culture is more important than that of a enemy population under mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R

So the criminals threw the natives under the bus and gave Palestine to foreigners.

It is clearly illegal under international law to deprive a people of their right to self-determination by using forcible actions including use of violence.

The right to self-determination - IHL