Palestine 101

[teddyearp]

No, I didn't. I still say though that the video started lying around the 5:00 minute mark. You are making excuses for it.

 

[P F Tinmore]

No, I didn't. I still say though that the video started lying around the 5:00 minute mark. You are making excuses for it.

You're ducking.

How so?

 

[teddyearp]

I am not ducking a thing, you obviously have a very short memory in this thread.

 

[Phoenall]

Already did. And you called it a misunderstanding. Five posts ago.

I did respond with my understanding of the events. I said:

OK, maybe there was a misunderstanding. Britain did not colonize Palestine for itself. It never claimed any part of Palestine.

It did, however, provide the military and political power to facilitate the colonization by the Zionists. Without the British assistance there would not be an Israel.​

You never took issue with any of that response.

Because it is bullcrap. If there should never have been an Israel then there should never ave been a Jordan, Syria, Iraq etc. as they were all created under the same rules and International laws

 

[P F Tinmore]

Already did. And you called it a misunderstanding. Five posts ago.

I did respond with my understanding of the events. I said:

OK, maybe there was a misunderstanding. Britain did not colonize Palestine for itself. It never claimed any part of Palestine.

It did, however, provide the military and political power to facilitate the colonization by the Zionists. Without the British assistance there would not be an Israel.​

You never took issue with any of that response.

Because it is bullcrap. If there should never have been an Israel then there should never ave been a Jordan, Syria, Iraq etc. as they were all created under the same rules and International laws

I didn't say should I said would.

 

[Phoenall]

Already did. And you called it a misunderstanding. Five posts ago.

I did respond with my understanding of the events. I said:

OK, maybe there was a misunderstanding. Britain did not colonize Palestine for itself. It never claimed any part of Palestine.

It did, however, provide the military and political power to facilitate the colonization by the Zionists. Without the British assistance there would not be an Israel.​

You never took issue with any of that response.

Because it is bullcrap. If there should never have been an Israel then there should never ave been a Jordan, Syria, Iraq etc. as they were all created under the same rules and International laws

I didn't say should I said would.

Actually the British were only a small part of the LoN and did not have that much power, so Israel would have still been created

 

[P F Tinmore]

Already did. And you called it a misunderstanding. Five posts ago.

I did respond with my understanding of the events. I said:

OK, maybe there was a misunderstanding. Britain did not colonize Palestine for itself. It never claimed any part of Palestine.

It did, however, provide the military and political power to facilitate the colonization by the Zionists. Without the British assistance there would not be an Israel.​

You never took issue with any of that response.

Because it is bullcrap. If there should never have been an Israel then there should never ave been a Jordan, Syria, Iraq etc. as they were all created under the same rules and International laws

I didn't say should I said would.

Actually the British were only a small part of the LoN and did not have that much power, so Israel would have still been created

OK, but Britain was the military power in Palestine. Britain did not even pretend to do what was in the best interest of the people as the LoN charter stated. They pushed the people aside and catered to the interest of foreigners.

Britain allowed, and sometimes assisted, the Zionists in creating "a state within a state" including a military. Meanwhile any Palestinian resistance to this colonization was crushed. Their organizations were banned and leaders were arrested, exiled, or killed.

When the Mandate left Palestine Israel was ready to roll while the Palestinians were a leaderless, civilian population.

 

[teddyearp]

Britain allowed, and sometimes assisted, the Zionists in creating "a state within a state" including a military. Meanwhile any Palestinian resistance to this colonization was crushed. Their organizations were banned and leaders were arrested, exiled, or killed.

Man, is your version of history ever a twisted pretzel. Maybe, just maybe, the first part of your first sentence has a tiny bit of truth, but the British did nothing to help Israel create a military. Nor were the British all one sided against the Arabs either. One of the resonsthey gave up on the mandate was because of both sides attacking each other and the British.

Let's just pull apart the lie about the British 'creating' an Israeli military:

After the 1920 Arab riots and 1921 Jaffa riots, the Jewish leadership in Palestine believed that the British, to whom the League of Nations had given a mandate over Palestine in 1920, had no desire to confront local Arab gangs that frequently attacked Palestinian Jews.[2][3] Believing that they could not rely on the British administration for protection from these gangs, the Jewish leadership created the Haganah to protect Jewish farms and kibbutzim. In addition to guarding Jewish communities, the role of the Haganah was to warn the residents of and repel attacks by Palestinian Arabs.

Source: Haganah - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Now as we all know, by the time of the end of the mandate, there were several Israeli 'military' factions; the Palach, the Irgun (an offshoot of Haganah), the Lehi were the main ones. But again, it was not the British that created them, nor Israel's military.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Britain allowed, and sometimes assisted, the Zionists in creating "a state within a state" including a military. Meanwhile any Palestinian resistance to this colonization was crushed. Their organizations were banned and leaders were arrested, exiled, or killed.

Man, is your version of history ever a twisted pretzel. Maybe, just maybe, the first part of your first sentence has a tiny bit of truth, but the British did nothing to help Israel create a military. Nor were the British all one sided against the Arabs either. One of the resonsthey gave up on the mandate was because of both sides attacking each other and the British.

Let's just pull apart the lie about the British 'creating' an Israeli military:

After the 1920 Arab riots and 1921 Jaffa riots, the Jewish leadership in Palestine believed that the British, to whom the League of Nations had given a mandate over Palestine in 1920, had no desire to confront local Arab gangs that frequently attacked Palestinian Jews.[2][3] Believing that they could not rely on the British administration for protection from these gangs, the Jewish leadership created the Haganah to protect Jewish farms and kibbutzim. In addition to guarding Jewish communities, the role of the Haganah was to warn the residents of and repel attacks by Palestinian Arabs.

Source: Haganah - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Now as we all know, by the time of the end of the mandate, there were several Israeli 'military' factions; the Palach, the Irgun (an offshoot of Haganah), the Lehi were the main ones. But again, it was not the British that created them, nor Israel's military.

I didn't lie. It depends on your perspective. The Zionists thought that Britain was doing too little in helping them colonize Palestine and reining in the natives.

The Palestinians were opposed to any colonization at all.

Consequently both sides had their complaints. Both sides are correct according to their own perspective. The fact is, though, that Britain ignored the Palestinians and sided with the Zionists until the Palestinians raised a big enough stink.

 

[Phoenall]

Already did. And you called it a misunderstanding. Five posts ago.

I did respond with my understanding of the events. I said:

OK, maybe there was a misunderstanding. Britain did not colonize Palestine for itself. It never claimed any part of Palestine.

It did, however, provide the military and political power to facilitate the colonization by the Zionists. Without the British assistance there would not be an Israel.​

You never took issue with any of that response.

Because it is bullcrap. If there should never have been an Israel then there should never ave been a Jordan, Syria, Iraq etc. as they were all created under the same rules and International laws

I didn't say should I said would.

Actually the British were only a small part of the LoN and did not have that much power, so Israel would have still been created

OK, but Britain was the military power in Palestine. Britain did not even pretend to do what was in the best interest of the people as the LoN charter stated. They pushed the people aside and catered to the interest of foreigners.

Britain allowed, and sometimes assisted, the Zionists in creating "a state within a state" including a military. Meanwhile any Palestinian resistance to this colonization was crushed. Their organizations were banned and leaders were arrested, exiled, or killed.

When the Mandate left Palestine Israel was ready to roll while the Palestinians were a leaderless, civilian population.

Firstly the MANDATE clearly stated the intention was to RESURECT THE NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS IN PALESTINE. It also clearly stated that the MANDATE would welcome any Jew to Palestine and assist them in their travels. The arab muslims were offered the choice relocate or stay. Britain could do none other as that is what the MANDATE stated, and there was no state in existence until 1948 when the Jews declared independence.
Because they were terrorists, insurgents and illegal immigrants.
They could still have declared, but their arab league leaders denied them the right to do so

 

[P F Tinmore]

I did respond with my understanding of the events. I said:

OK, maybe there was a misunderstanding. Britain did not colonize Palestine for itself. It never claimed any part of Palestine.

It did, however, provide the military and political power to facilitate the colonization by the Zionists. Without the British assistance there would not be an Israel.​

You never took issue with any of that response.

Because it is bullcrap. If there should never have been an Israel then there should never ave been a Jordan, Syria, Iraq etc. as they were all created under the same rules and International laws

I didn't say should I said would.

Actually the British were only a small part of the LoN and did not have that much power, so Israel would have still been created

OK, but Britain was the military power in Palestine. Britain did not even pretend to do what was in the best interest of the people as the LoN charter stated. They pushed the people aside and catered to the interest of foreigners.

Britain allowed, and sometimes assisted, the Zionists in creating "a state within a state" including a military. Meanwhile any Palestinian resistance to this colonization was crushed. Their organizations were banned and leaders were arrested, exiled, or killed.

When the Mandate left Palestine Israel was ready to roll while the Palestinians were a leaderless, civilian population.

Firstly the MANDATE clearly stated the intention was to RESURECT THE NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS IN PALESTINE. It also clearly stated that the MANDATE would welcome any Jew to Palestine and assist them in their travels. The arab muslims were offered the choice relocate or stay. Britain could do none other as that is what the MANDATE stated, and there was no state in existence until 1948 when the Jews declared independence.
Because they were terrorists, insurgents and illegal immigrants.
They could still have declared, but their arab league leaders denied them the right to do so

You need to read the mandate charter. What happened on the ground was different. The mandate was not to create a Jewish state. The mandate did not create a Jewish state.

Israel was declared unilaterally by the Zionists outside of legal norms and conventions.

 

[Phoenall]

Because it is bullcrap. If there should never have been an Israel then there should never ave been a Jordan, Syria, Iraq etc. as they were all created under the same rules and International laws

I didn't say should I said would.

Actually the British were only a small part of the LoN and did not have that much power, so Israel would have still been created

OK, but Britain was the military power in Palestine. Britain did not even pretend to do what was in the best interest of the people as the LoN charter stated. They pushed the people aside and catered to the interest of foreigners.

Britain allowed, and sometimes assisted, the Zionists in creating "a state within a state" including a military. Meanwhile any Palestinian resistance to this colonization was crushed. Their organizations were banned and leaders were arrested, exiled, or killed.

When the Mandate left Palestine Israel was ready to roll while the Palestinians were a leaderless, civilian population.

Firstly the MANDATE clearly stated the intention was to RESURECT THE NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS IN PALESTINE. It also clearly stated that the MANDATE would welcome any Jew to Palestine and assist them in their travels. The arab muslims were offered the choice relocate or stay. Britain could do none other as that is what the MANDATE stated, and there was no state in existence until 1948 when the Jews declared independence.
Because they were terrorists, insurgents and illegal immigrants.
They could still have declared, but their arab league leaders denied them the right to do so

You need to read the mandate charter. What happened on the ground was different. The mandate was not to create a Jewish state. The mandate did not create a Jewish state.

Israel was declared unilaterally by the Zionists outside of legal norms and conventions.

BULLSHIT the Mandate was for that purpose amongst others

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)

The formal objective of the League of Nations Mandate system was to administer parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century, "until such time as they are able to stand alone."[5] The mandate document formalised the creation of two British protectorates: Palestine, to include a national home for the Jewish people, under direct British rule, and Transjordan, an Emirate governed semi-autonomously from Britain, under the rule of the Hashemite family

The mandate was a legal and administrative instrument, not a geographical territory.[26] The territorial jurisdiction of the mandate was subject to change by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance or other lawful means.
The document was based on the principles contained in Article 22 of the draft Covenant of the League of Nations and the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920 by the principal Allied and associated powers after the First World War.[1] The mandate formalised British rule in the southern part of Ottoman Syria from 1923–1948.
Each of the principal Allied powers had a hand in drafting the proposed mandate[27]—although some, including the United States, had not declared war on the Ottoman Empire and did not become members of the League of Nations.


The preamble of the mandate document declared:
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

 

[P F Tinmore]

I didn't say should I said would.

Actually the British were only a small part of the LoN and did not have that much power, so Israel would have still been created

OK, but Britain was the military power in Palestine. Britain did not even pretend to do what was in the best interest of the people as the LoN charter stated. They pushed the people aside and catered to the interest of foreigners.

Britain allowed, and sometimes assisted, the Zionists in creating "a state within a state" including a military. Meanwhile any Palestinian resistance to this colonization was crushed. Their organizations were banned and leaders were arrested, exiled, or killed.

When the Mandate left Palestine Israel was ready to roll while the Palestinians were a leaderless, civilian population.

Firstly the MANDATE clearly stated the intention was to RESURECT THE NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS IN PALESTINE. It also clearly stated that the MANDATE would welcome any Jew to Palestine and assist them in their travels. The arab muslims were offered the choice relocate or stay. Britain could do none other as that is what the MANDATE stated, and there was no state in existence until 1948 when the Jews declared independence.
Because they were terrorists, insurgents and illegal immigrants.
They could still have declared, but their arab league leaders denied them the right to do so

You need to read the mandate charter. What happened on the ground was different. The mandate was not to create a Jewish state. The mandate did not create a Jewish state.

Israel was declared unilaterally by the Zionists outside of legal norms and conventions.

BULLSHIT the Mandate was for that purpose amongst others

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)

The formal objective of the League of Nations Mandate system was to administer parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century, "until such time as they are able to stand alone."[5] The mandate document formalised the creation of two British protectorates: Palestine, to include a national home for the Jewish people, under direct British rule, and Transjordan, an Emirate governed semi-autonomously from Britain, under the rule of the Hashemite family

The mandate was a legal and administrative instrument, not a geographical territory.[26] The territorial jurisdiction of the mandate was subject to change by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance or other lawful means.
The document was based on the principles contained in Article 22 of the draft Covenant of the League of Nations and the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920 by the principal Allied and associated powers after the First World War.[1] The mandate formalised British rule in the southern part of Ottoman Syria from 1923–1948.
Each of the principal Allied powers had a hand in drafting the proposed mandate[27]—although some, including the United States, had not declared war on the Ottoman Empire and did not become members of the League of Nations.


The preamble of the mandate document declared:
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

Thank you.

That does not contradict my post.

 

[docmauser1]

An informative talk on the history and current situation in Palestine. Includes alternate choices.

Palistanian toob drivel.

 

[Phoenall]

Actually the British were only a small part of the LoN and did not have that much power, so Israel would have still been created

OK, but Britain was the military power in Palestine. Britain did not even pretend to do what was in the best interest of the people as the LoN charter stated. They pushed the people aside and catered to the interest of foreigners.

Britain allowed, and sometimes assisted, the Zionists in creating "a state within a state" including a military. Meanwhile any Palestinian resistance to this colonization was crushed. Their organizations were banned and leaders were arrested, exiled, or killed.

When the Mandate left Palestine Israel was ready to roll while the Palestinians were a leaderless, civilian population.

Firstly the MANDATE clearly stated the intention was to RESURECT THE NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS IN PALESTINE. It also clearly stated that the MANDATE would welcome any Jew to Palestine and assist them in their travels. The arab muslims were offered the choice relocate or stay. Britain could do none other as that is what the MANDATE stated, and there was no state in existence until 1948 when the Jews declared independence.
Because they were terrorists, insurgents and illegal immigrants.
They could still have declared, but their arab league leaders denied them the right to do so

You need to read the mandate charter. What happened on the ground was different. The mandate was not to create a Jewish state. The mandate did not create a Jewish state.

Israel was declared unilaterally by the Zionists outside of legal norms and conventions.

BULLSHIT the Mandate was for that purpose amongst others

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)

The formal objective of the League of Nations Mandate system was to administer parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century, "until such time as they are able to stand alone."[5] The mandate document formalised the creation of two British protectorates: Palestine, to include a national home for the Jewish people, under direct British rule, and Transjordan, an Emirate governed semi-autonomously from Britain, under the rule of the Hashemite family

The mandate was a legal and administrative instrument, not a geographical territory.[26] The territorial jurisdiction of the mandate was subject to change by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance or other lawful means.
The document was based on the principles contained in Article 22 of the draft Covenant of the League of Nations and the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920 by the principal Allied and associated powers after the First World War.[1] The mandate formalised British rule in the southern part of Ottoman Syria from 1923–1948.
Each of the principal Allied powers had a hand in drafting the proposed mandate[27]—although some, including the United States, had not declared war on the Ottoman Empire and did not become members of the League of Nations.


The preamble of the mandate document declared:
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

Thank you.

That does not contradict my post.

Read the MANDATE again and see where it states one of its aims is to " ESTABLISH IN PALESTINE A NATIONAL HOME FOR THE JEWS ", this being the mandate for Palestine. So seeing as this was International Law then how did the Jews go outside of legal norms and conventions

 

[P F Tinmore]

OK, but Britain was the military power in Palestine. Britain did not even pretend to do what was in the best interest of the people as the LoN charter stated. They pushed the people aside and catered to the interest of foreigners.

Britain allowed, and sometimes assisted, the Zionists in creating "a state within a state" including a military. Meanwhile any Palestinian resistance to this colonization was crushed. Their organizations were banned and leaders were arrested, exiled, or killed.

When the Mandate left Palestine Israel was ready to roll while the Palestinians were a leaderless, civilian population.

Firstly the MANDATE clearly stated the intention was to RESURECT THE NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS IN PALESTINE. It also clearly stated that the MANDATE would welcome any Jew to Palestine and assist them in their travels. The arab muslims were offered the choice relocate or stay. Britain could do none other as that is what the MANDATE stated, and there was no state in existence until 1948 when the Jews declared independence.
Because they were terrorists, insurgents and illegal immigrants.
They could still have declared, but their arab league leaders denied them the right to do so

You need to read the mandate charter. What happened on the ground was different. The mandate was not to create a Jewish state. The mandate did not create a Jewish state.

Israel was declared unilaterally by the Zionists outside of legal norms and conventions.

BULLSHIT the Mandate was for that purpose amongst others

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)

The formal objective of the League of Nations Mandate system was to administer parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century, "until such time as they are able to stand alone."[5] The mandate document formalised the creation of two British protectorates: Palestine, to include a national home for the Jewish people, under direct British rule, and Transjordan, an Emirate governed semi-autonomously from Britain, under the rule of the Hashemite family

The mandate was a legal and administrative instrument, not a geographical territory.[26] The territorial jurisdiction of the mandate was subject to change by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance or other lawful means.
The document was based on the principles contained in Article 22 of the draft Covenant of the League of Nations and the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920 by the principal Allied and associated powers after the First World War.[1] The mandate formalised British rule in the southern part of Ottoman Syria from 1923–1948.
Each of the principal Allied powers had a hand in drafting the proposed mandate[27]—although some, including the United States, had not declared war on the Ottoman Empire and did not become members of the League of Nations.


The preamble of the mandate document declared:
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

Thank you.

That does not contradict my post.

Read the MANDATE again and see where it states one of its aims is to " ESTABLISH IN PALESTINE A NATIONAL HOME FOR THE JEWS ", this being the mandate for Palestine. So seeing as this was International Law then how did the Jews go outside of legal norms and conventions

Is the national home for Jews in Palestine?

 

[toastman]

Because it is bullcrap. If there should never have been an Israel then there should never ave been a Jordan, Syria, Iraq etc. as they were all created under the same rules and International laws

I didn't say should I said would.

Actually the British were only a small part of the LoN and did not have that much power, so Israel would have still been created

OK, but Britain was the military power in Palestine. Britain did not even pretend to do what was in the best interest of the people as the LoN charter stated. They pushed the people aside and catered to the interest of foreigners.

Britain allowed, and sometimes assisted, the Zionists in creating "a state within a state" including a military. Meanwhile any Palestinian resistance to this colonization was crushed. Their organizations were banned and leaders were arrested, exiled, or killed.

When the Mandate left Palestine Israel was ready to roll while the Palestinians were a leaderless, civilian population.

Firstly the MANDATE clearly stated the intention was to RESURECT THE NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS IN PALESTINE. It also clearly stated that the MANDATE would welcome any Jew to Palestine and assist them in their travels. The arab muslims were offered the choice relocate or stay. Britain could do none other as that is what the MANDATE stated, and there was no state in existence until 1948 when the Jews declared independence.
Because they were terrorists, insurgents and illegal immigrants.
They could still have declared, but their arab league leaders denied them the right to do so

You need to read the mandate charter. What happened on the ground was different. The mandate was not to create a Jewish state. The mandate did not create a Jewish state.

Israel was declared unilaterally by the Zionists outside of legal norms and conventions.

According to who ? You ? According to what norms ? Tinmore norms ?? We've been through this 1000 times. Just because Israel didn't meet the Tinmore requirements to declare independence, it means nothing in the real world.

All you have is your opinion. no links, nothing. I'm STILL waiting for a link that proves that Israel needed to have a land acquiring treaty with 'Palestine' in order to declare independence.

 

[Phoenall]

Firstly the MANDATE clearly stated the intention was to RESURECT THE NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS IN PALESTINE. It also clearly stated that the MANDATE would welcome any Jew to Palestine and assist them in their travels. The arab muslims were offered the choice relocate or stay. Britain could do none other as that is what the MANDATE stated, and there was no state in existence until 1948 when the Jews declared independence.
Because they were terrorists, insurgents and illegal immigrants.
They could still have declared, but their arab league leaders denied them the right to do so

You need to read the mandate charter. What happened on the ground was different. The mandate was not to create a Jewish state. The mandate did not create a Jewish state.

Israel was declared unilaterally by the Zionists outside of legal norms and conventions.

BULLSHIT the Mandate was for that purpose amongst others

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)

The formal objective of the League of Nations Mandate system was to administer parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century, "until such time as they are able to stand alone."[5] The mandate document formalised the creation of two British protectorates: Palestine, to include a national home for the Jewish people, under direct British rule, and Transjordan, an Emirate governed semi-autonomously from Britain, under the rule of the Hashemite family

The mandate was a legal and administrative instrument, not a geographical territory.[26] The territorial jurisdiction of the mandate was subject to change by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance or other lawful means.
The document was based on the principles contained in Article 22 of the draft Covenant of the League of Nations and the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920 by the principal Allied and associated powers after the First World War.[1] The mandate formalised British rule in the southern part of Ottoman Syria from 1923–1948.
Each of the principal Allied powers had a hand in drafting the proposed mandate[27]—although some, including the United States, had not declared war on the Ottoman Empire and did not become members of the League of Nations.


The preamble of the mandate document declared:
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

Thank you.

That does not contradict my post.

Read the MANDATE again and see where it states one of its aims is to " ESTABLISH IN PALESTINE A NATIONAL HOME FOR THE JEWS ", this being the mandate for Palestine. So seeing as this was International Law then how did the Jews go outside of legal norms and conventions

Is the national home for Jews in Palestine?

Yes the MANDATE FOR PALESTINE as set out in the MANDATE

 

[toastman]

Firstly the MANDATE clearly stated the intention was to RESURECT THE NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS IN PALESTINE. It also clearly stated that the MANDATE would welcome any Jew to Palestine and assist them in their travels. The arab muslims were offered the choice relocate or stay. Britain could do none other as that is what the MANDATE stated, and there was no state in existence until 1948 when the Jews declared independence.
Because they were terrorists, insurgents and illegal immigrants.
They could still have declared, but their arab league leaders denied them the right to do so

You need to read the mandate charter. What happened on the ground was different. The mandate was not to create a Jewish state. The mandate did not create a Jewish state.

Israel was declared unilaterally by the Zionists outside of legal norms and conventions.

BULLSHIT the Mandate was for that purpose amongst others

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)

The formal objective of the League of Nations Mandate system was to administer parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire, which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century, "until such time as they are able to stand alone."[5] The mandate document formalised the creation of two British protectorates: Palestine, to include a national home for the Jewish people, under direct British rule, and Transjordan, an Emirate governed semi-autonomously from Britain, under the rule of the Hashemite family

The mandate was a legal and administrative instrument, not a geographical territory.[26] The territorial jurisdiction of the mandate was subject to change by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance or other lawful means.
The document was based on the principles contained in Article 22 of the draft Covenant of the League of Nations and the San Remo Resolution of 25 April 1920 by the principal Allied and associated powers after the First World War.[1] The mandate formalised British rule in the southern part of Ottoman Syria from 1923–1948.
Each of the principal Allied powers had a hand in drafting the proposed mandate[27]—although some, including the United States, had not declared war on the Ottoman Empire and did not become members of the League of Nations.


The preamble of the mandate document declared:
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

Thank you.

That does not contradict my post.

Read the MANDATE again and see where it states one of its aims is to " ESTABLISH IN PALESTINE A NATIONAL HOME FOR THE JEWS ", this being the mandate for Palestine. So seeing as this was International Law then how did the Jews go outside of legal norms and conventions

Is the national home for Jews in Palestine?

huh??

 

[teddyearp]

The Palestinians were opposed to any colonization at all.

They were? What about this:

Faisal Weizmann Agreement - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia