Palestinian Peace Proposal

[montelatici]

...You forget that the land was given to the Jews while the arab muslims received trans Jordan. That is the only partition that was legal. Now if you push this islamonazi propaganda then all the nations in the M.E. are also illegal as they were created under the same mandate laws.

True...

Which raises the question...

"Why are Arabs still occupying the West Bank and Gaza?"

These occupiers need to leave Israeli territory.

You are posting a Hasbara map copyrighted in 2005? What's the point?

 

[montelatici]

...There was no "immigration." Immigration is going to a country to be a part of that country. The settlers were not imported to be a part of Palestine. They lived separate lives and were imported to populate a planned Jewish state in Palestine.

Trouble with that premise is, there was no 'Palestine' to be a part of; at least nothing beyond the regional descriptive label; no autonomous people nor government; no nufin'.

Of course there was a Palestine. It also had provisional statehood per the League of Nations. What are you talking about?

 

[P F Tinmore]

...There was no "immigration." Immigration is going to a country to be a part of that country. The settlers were not imported to be a part of Palestine. They lived separate lives and were imported to populate a planned Jewish state in Palestine.

Trouble with that premise is, there was no 'Palestine' to be a part of; at least nothing beyond the regional descriptive label; no autonomous people nor government; no nufin'.

Of course there was a Palestine. It also had provisional statehood per the League of Nations. What are you talking about?

Palestine, as the mandate clearly showed, was a subject under international law. While she could not conclude international conventions, the mandatory Power, until further notice, concluded them on her behalf, in virtue of Article 19 of the mandate. The mandate, in Article 7, obliged the Mandatory to enact a nationality law, which again showed that the Palestinians formed a nation, and that Palestine was a State, though provisionally under guardianship. It was, moreover, unnecessary to labour the point; there was no doubt whatever that Palestine was a separate political entity. - See more at: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations 32nd session - Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission 18 August 1937 ​

Indeed.

 

[Kondor3]

...You forget that the land was given to the Jews while the arab muslims received trans Jordan. That is the only partition that was legal. Now if you push this islamonazi propaganda then all the nations in the M.E. are also illegal as they were created under the same mandate laws.

True...

Which raises the question...

"Why are Arabs still occupying the West Bank and Gaza?"

These occupiers need to leave Israeli territory.

You are posting a Hasbara map copyrighted in 2005? What's the point?

To demonstrate what the Jews of Israel want...

To demonstrate what they're going to get...

To demonstrate just how close they already are to achieving just that...

 

[Kondor3]

...There was no "immigration." Immigration is going to a country to be a part of that country. The settlers were not imported to be a part of Palestine. They lived separate lives and were imported to populate a planned Jewish state in Palestine.

Trouble with that premise is, there was no 'Palestine' to be a part of; at least nothing beyond the regional descriptive label; no autonomous people nor government; no nufin'.

Of course there was a Palestine. It also had provisional statehood per the League of Nations. What are you talking about?

When you can credibly identify an autonomous, self-governing nation, recognized by a majority of world governments, then you'll have something to wave about...

Trouble is, no such thing existed, pre-1948...

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, Kondor3, P F Tinmore, et al,

This is not accurate.

...There was no "immigration." Immigration is going to a country to be a part of that country. The settlers were not imported to be a part of Palestine. They lived separate lives and were imported to populate a planned Jewish state in Palestine.

Trouble with that premise is, there was no 'Palestine' to be a part of; at least nothing beyond the regional descriptive label; no autonomous people nor government; no nufin'.

Of course there was a Palestine. It also had provisional statehood per the League of Nations. What are you talking about?

(COMMENT)

Palestine was NOT necessarily given provisional recognition by the Covenant; but it had potential.

The Covenant never mentions Palestine even once in the text. What it says is:

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory. - See more at: League of Nations covenant - Peace Treaty of Versailles Peace Conference text Non-UN document 28 April 1919

The word "certain" implies "not all." If they would have meant that all communities were provisionally recognized, then the would have said: "ALL." But they did not. In the case of the Mandate for Palestine, certainly Trans-Jordan, which was promised to the Sharif of Mecca as a Kingdom for one of his sons, was "provisionally recognized."

Second, the Arab Higher Committee was demanding the entire expanse under the Mandate (from the River to the Sea). Nothing of the sort was promised in the Covenant.

The Political History of Palestine under

British Administration
-----
Memorandum by
His Britannic Majesty's Government
presented in 1947
to the United Nations Special Committee
on Palestine
Published at Jerusalem, 1947​

87. The members of the Peel Commission were led by their diagnosis of the situation in Palestine to the conclusion that the obligations imposed upon the Mandatory by the terms of the Mandate were mutually irreconcilable.​

“To put it in one sentence, we cannot-in Palestine as it now is-both concede the Arab claim to self-government and secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home.”​

​

88. In these circumstances the maintenance of the Mandate would mean the indefinite continuance of unrest and disturbance. The Commission therefore recommended that His Majesty’s Government should take steps to terminate the Mandate and to partition the country in such a way as to create an independent Jewish State in the north and west, and to incorporate most of the remaining territory in Trans-Jordan.​

“Manifestly”, the Commission wrote, “the problem cannot be solved by giving either the Arabs or the Jews all they want. The answer to the question ‘which of them in the end will govern Palestine?’ must surely be ‘Neither.’ We do not think that any fair-minded statesman would suppose, now that the hope of harmony between the races has proved untenable, that Britain ought either to hand over to Arab rule 400,000 Jews, whose entry into Palestine has been for the most part facilitated by the British Government and approved by the League of Nations; or that, if the Jews should become a majority, a million or so of Arabs should be handed over to their rule. But, while neither race can justly rule all Palestine, we see no reason why, if it were practicable, each race should not rule part of it.”​

89. The Commission believed that partition on the lines they proposed, while demanding from both Arabs and Jews some sacrifice of their aspirations, would confer on each of them substantial advantages. A large part of the Arab population would obtain its independence, and would be finally delivered from the possibility of ultimate subjection to Jewish rule. The Jews, conversely, would be secured against the possibility of subjection to Arab rule, and would be free to determine their own rate of immigration. To both peoples partition would offer the prospect of peace. “it is surely worth some sacrifice on both sides if the quarrel which the Mandate started could be ended with its termination.”​

129. The twelve members of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, working with a time limit of 120 days, held their first meeting in Washington on 4th January, 1946, and signed an unanimous Report at Lausanne on 20th April.​

The committee recommended that the constitutional future of Palestine should be based on three principles:-​

I. That Jew shall not dominate Arab and Arab shall not dominate Jew in Palestine​

II. That Palestine shall be neither a Jewish state nor an Arab state.​

III. That the form of government ultimately to be established, shall, under international guarantees, fully protect and preserve the interests in the Holy land of Christendom and of the Moslem and Jewish Faiths.​

Third, the Arab Palestinians never stipulated that they were able to "stand alone;" nor did they practically demonstrate the required criteria.

It was not intended, that the remainder of the Mandate be dominated by Arab Palestinian rule. Palestine (less the Article 25 carve-out for Jordan) was not going to be totally ruled under Arab Sovereignty.

The Question is: What are YOU talking about?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, let's examine these questions.

How much of this was not a response to the Zionists?

(COMMENT)

The issue here is: response. The Jewish people immigrated both lawfully and peacefully.

None of it was in response to Article 4 immigrant violence on the part of the Jewish. It started because the Jewish were organized and productive --- Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

The Zionists were not invited. They lobbied to be allowed to go to Palestine.

There was no "immigration." Immigration is going to a country to be a part of that country. The settlers were not imported to be a part of Palestine. They lived separate lives and were imported to populate a planned Jewish state in Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The Jewish Immigrants came to the territory under Mandate according to Article 6: "Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage." And yes, a fragment of what you said is true: with the intend to execute the Balfour Declaration as stated in the Mandate --- "in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."

(i) The High Commissioner shall confer upon all matters relating to the regulation of immigration with a Committee consisting of not less than one-half of the unofficial members of the Legislative Council, and provision shall be made by Order in Council for investing the said Committee with all such powers and authorities and otherwise for the constitution and conduct of the business of the said Committee, as may be necessary to carry this Article into effect.

(ii) In the event of any difference of opinion between the High Commissioner and the said Committee upon any such matter as aforesaid, the High Commissioner shall make a full report on the subject to a Secretary of State, whose decision thereon shall be final.
SOURCE: Palestine Order in Council

The decision to facilitate IMMIGRATION was a decision made by the Allied Powers in San Remo (1920). It was a decision made with a clear understanding of the intent behind Article 22 in the Covenant; and the understanding to the grounds for reconstituting their national home.

All the decisions made --- relative to "immigration matters" --- were not in the hands of the Arab Palestinian or the Jewish People. Matters related to immigration rested entirely upon the shoulders of the High Commissioner and the Mandatory (HM's Secretary of State).

Look at the facts.

If it was not for the Zionists there would not have been a Black Hand. There would be no PLO, no Fatah, no PFLP, no Hamas, and no Islamic Jihad.

Everything that all of those people did would not have happened.

(COMMENT)

If it were not for the Arab Palestinians ability to rationally accept the decision of the Allied Powers, and help the Territorial Mandate to properly extend a helping hand for those that came; "Arab State and Palestine in all their relations and undertakings shall be controlled by the most cordial goodwill and understanding and to this end Arab and Jewish duly accredited agents shall be established and maintained in their respective territories."
- See more at: Faisal-Weizmann agreement Non-UN document 3 January 1919

The Ottoman Empire did not surrender the territory to which the Mandate applied to any Hostile Arab Palestinians --- NOT:

• Abdullah Azzam Brigades
• Abu Ali Mustapha Brigades
• Abu Nidal Organization
• Al-'Asifah
• Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades
• Al-Nasser Salah al-Deen Brigades
• Al-Quds Brigades
• Arab Liberation Front
• Arab Palestine Organization
• Army of Islam (Gaza Strip)
• Army of the Holy War
• As-Sa'iqa
• Black Hand (Mandatory Palestine)
• Black September Organization
• Fatah
• Fatah al-Intifada
• Fatah Hawks
• Fatah Special Operations Group
• Force 14
• Force 17
• Hamas
• Holy Jihad Brigades
• Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine
• Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades
• Palestine Liberation Army
• Palestine Liberation Front
• Palestinian National and Islamic Forces
• Palestinian National Salvation Front
• Palestinian Popular Struggle Front
• Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine
• Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – External Operations
• Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command
• Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – Special Command
• Popular Resistance Committees
• Popular Revolutionary Front for the Liberation of Palestine

​

Certainly none of these organization represented any legitimate authority over such matters in the territory.

Most Respectfully,
R

The decision to facilitate IMMIGRATION was a decision made by the Allied Powers in San Remo (1920).​

The Balfour Declaration was the product of 20 years of Zionist lobbying. The Zionists lobbied to have it inserted into San Remo and the Mandate. They lobbied to have Britain selected to be the Mandate.

To say that they were "invited" is ludicrous.

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, Kondor3, P F Tinmore, et al,

This is not accurate.

...There was no "immigration." Immigration is going to a country to be a part of that country. The settlers were not imported to be a part of Palestine. They lived separate lives and were imported to populate a planned Jewish state in Palestine.

Trouble with that premise is, there was no 'Palestine' to be a part of; at least nothing beyond the regional descriptive label; no autonomous people nor government; no nufin'.

Of course there was a Palestine. It also had provisional statehood per the League of Nations. What are you talking about?

(COMMENT)

Palestine was NOT necessarily given provisional recognition by the Covenant; but it had potential.

The Covenant never mentions Palestine even once in the text. What it says is:

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory. - See more at: League of Nations covenant - Peace Treaty of Versailles Peace Conference text Non-UN document 28 April 1919

The word "certain" implies "not all." If they would have meant that all communities were provisionally recognized, then the would have said: "ALL." But they did not. In the case of the Mandate for Palestine, certainly Trans-Jordan, which was promised to the Sharif of Mecca as a Kingdom for one of his sons, was "provisionally recognized."

Second, the Arab Higher Committee was demanding the entire expanse under the Mandate (from the River to the Sea). Nothing of the sort was promised in the Covenant.

The Political History of Palestine under

British Administration
-----
Memorandum by
His Britannic Majesty's Government
presented in 1947
to the United Nations Special Committee
on Palestine
Published at Jerusalem, 1947​

87. The members of the Peel Commission were led by their diagnosis of the situation in Palestine to the conclusion that the obligations imposed upon the Mandatory by the terms of the Mandate were mutually irreconcilable.​

“To put it in one sentence, we cannot-in Palestine as it now is-both concede the Arab claim to self-government and secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home.”​

​

88. In these circumstances the maintenance of the Mandate would mean the indefinite continuance of unrest and disturbance. The Commission therefore recommended that His Majesty’s Government should take steps to terminate the Mandate and to partition the country in such a way as to create an independent Jewish State in the north and west, and to incorporate most of the remaining territory in Trans-Jordan.​

“Manifestly”, the Commission wrote, “the problem cannot be solved by giving either the Arabs or the Jews all they want. The answer to the question ‘which of them in the end will govern Palestine?’ must surely be ‘Neither.’ We do not think that any fair-minded statesman would suppose, now that the hope of harmony between the races has proved untenable, that Britain ought either to hand over to Arab rule 400,000 Jews, whose entry into Palestine has been for the most part facilitated by the British Government and approved by the League of Nations; or that, if the Jews should become a majority, a million or so of Arabs should be handed over to their rule. But, while neither race can justly rule all Palestine, we see no reason why, if it were practicable, each race should not rule part of it.”​

89. The Commission believed that partition on the lines they proposed, while demanding from both Arabs and Jews some sacrifice of their aspirations, would confer on each of them substantial advantages. A large part of the Arab population would obtain its independence, and would be finally delivered from the possibility of ultimate subjection to Jewish rule. The Jews, conversely, would be secured against the possibility of subjection to Arab rule, and would be free to determine their own rate of immigration. To both peoples partition would offer the prospect of peace. “it is surely worth some sacrifice on both sides if the quarrel which the Mandate started could be ended with its termination.”​

129. The twelve members of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, working with a time limit of 120 days, held their first meeting in Washington on 4th January, 1946, and signed an unanimous Report at Lausanne on 20th April.​

The committee recommended that the constitutional future of Palestine should be based on three principles:-​

I. That Jew shall not dominate Arab and Arab shall not dominate Jew in Palestine​

II. That Palestine shall be neither a Jewish state nor an Arab state.​

III. That the form of government ultimately to be established, shall, under international guarantees, fully protect and preserve the interests in the Holy land of Christendom and of the Moslem and Jewish Faiths.​

Third, the Arab Palestinians never stipulated that they were able to "stand alone;" nor did they practically demonstrate the required criteria.

It was not intended, that the remainder of the Mandate be dominated by Arab Palestinian rule. Palestine (less the Article 25 carve-out for Jordan) was not going to be totally ruled under Arab Sovereignty.

The Question is: What are YOU talking about?

Most Respectfully,
R

87. The members of the Peel Commission were led by their diagnosis of the situation in Palestine to the conclusion that the obligations imposed upon the Mandatory by the terms of the Mandate were mutually irreconcilable.​

Indeed, their stupid plan was a big flop. So they planned for partition which was also a big flop.

When Britain stuck the UN with the problem, the UN suggested partition that had already flopped and they knew it was going to flop too but they did it anyway and it flopped.

It is amazing how much stupidity can be assembled into such a small group of people

 

[montelatici]

I. That Jew shall not dominate Arab and Arab shall not dominate Jew in Palestine

II. That Palestine shall be neither a Jewish state nor an Arab state."

Isn't that precious.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

No, I'm not being "ludicrous" at all.

The Balfour Declaration was the product of 20 years of Zionist lobbying. The Zionists lobbied to have it inserted into San Remo and the Mandate. They lobbied to have Britain selected to be the Mandate.

To say that they were "invited" is ludicrous.

(COMMENT)

I don't dispute that the Jewish Organizations "lobbied" in their best interest. They would be fools not to put their best foot forward. Having said that, don't believe for a moment that the Arab Higher Committee was not in there, mixing it up, with their campaign to get what they wanted. Both sides were lobbying and both sides put forth their agenda. That is just the politics in play.

As to "invited!" Anyone can knock on the door. Whether the Allied Powers let them in the door is a decision made by them. Obviously, if you think the Jewish Organization got the better deal, only means that in your view, the Jewish had the better argument and sales pitch.

Crying won't help you and praying won't do you no good!​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, Kondor3, P F Tinmore, et al,

This is not accurate.

...There was no "immigration." Immigration is going to a country to be a part of that country. The settlers were not imported to be a part of Palestine. They lived separate lives and were imported to populate a planned Jewish state in Palestine.

Trouble with that premise is, there was no 'Palestine' to be a part of; at least nothing beyond the regional descriptive label; no autonomous people nor government; no nufin'.

Of course there was a Palestine. It also had provisional statehood per the League of Nations. What are you talking about?

(COMMENT)

Palestine was NOT necessarily given provisional recognition by the Covenant; but it had potential.

The Covenant never mentions Palestine even once in the text. What it says is:

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory. - See more at: League of Nations covenant - Peace Treaty of Versailles Peace Conference text Non-UN document 28 April 1919

The word "certain" implies "not all." If they would have meant that all communities were provisionally recognized, then the would have said: "ALL." But they did not. In the case of the Mandate for Palestine, certainly Trans-Jordan, which was promised to the Sharif of Mecca as a Kingdom for one of his sons, was "provisionally recognized."

Second, the Arab Higher Committee was demanding the entire expanse under the Mandate (from the River to the Sea). Nothing of the sort was promised in the Covenant.

The Political History of Palestine under

British Administration
-----
Memorandum by
His Britannic Majesty's Government
presented in 1947
to the United Nations Special Committee
on Palestine
Published at Jerusalem, 1947​

87. The members of the Peel Commission were led by their diagnosis of the situation in Palestine to the conclusion that the obligations imposed upon the Mandatory by the terms of the Mandate were mutually irreconcilable.​

“To put it in one sentence, we cannot-in Palestine as it now is-both concede the Arab claim to self-government and secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home.”​

​

88. In these circumstances the maintenance of the Mandate would mean the indefinite continuance of unrest and disturbance. The Commission therefore recommended that His Majesty’s Government should take steps to terminate the Mandate and to partition the country in such a way as to create an independent Jewish State in the north and west, and to incorporate most of the remaining territory in Trans-Jordan.​

“Manifestly”, the Commission wrote, “the problem cannot be solved by giving either the Arabs or the Jews all they want. The answer to the question ‘which of them in the end will govern Palestine?’ must surely be ‘Neither.’ We do not think that any fair-minded statesman would suppose, now that the hope of harmony between the races has proved untenable, that Britain ought either to hand over to Arab rule 400,000 Jews, whose entry into Palestine has been for the most part facilitated by the British Government and approved by the League of Nations; or that, if the Jews should become a majority, a million or so of Arabs should be handed over to their rule. But, while neither race can justly rule all Palestine, we see no reason why, if it were practicable, each race should not rule part of it.”​

89. The Commission believed that partition on the lines they proposed, while demanding from both Arabs and Jews some sacrifice of their aspirations, would confer on each of them substantial advantages. A large part of the Arab population would obtain its independence, and would be finally delivered from the possibility of ultimate subjection to Jewish rule. The Jews, conversely, would be secured against the possibility of subjection to Arab rule, and would be free to determine their own rate of immigration. To both peoples partition would offer the prospect of peace. “it is surely worth some sacrifice on both sides if the quarrel which the Mandate started could be ended with its termination.”​

129. The twelve members of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, working with a time limit of 120 days, held their first meeting in Washington on 4th January, 1946, and signed an unanimous Report at Lausanne on 20th April.​

The committee recommended that the constitutional future of Palestine should be based on three principles:-​

I. That Jew shall not dominate Arab and Arab shall not dominate Jew in Palestine​

II. That Palestine shall be neither a Jewish state nor an Arab state.​

III. That the form of government ultimately to be established, shall, under international guarantees, fully protect and preserve the interests in the Holy land of Christendom and of the Moslem and Jewish Faiths.​

Third, the Arab Palestinians never stipulated that they were able to "stand alone;" nor did they practically demonstrate the required criteria.

It was not intended, that the remainder of the Mandate be dominated by Arab Palestinian rule. Palestine (less the Article 25 carve-out for Jordan) was not going to be totally ruled under Arab Sovereignty.

The Question is: What are YOU talking about?

Most Respectfully,
R

Did the Covenant say certain communities except for Palestine.

I didn't see that in there.

 

[montelatici]

Now Rocco, the facts, not your fantasies:

"MEMORANDUM BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS. [Lord Curzon].

A FINAL decision about Mandates A is required. The Assembly of the League of Nations is concerned about their submission to the Council, and will probably not allow the gathering at Geneva to come to an end without a decision being taken on the point.

It is understood that the Council of the League is likely to hold a meeting while at Geneva to consider these Mandates, and it has been informed that they will be submitted without further delay. The Mandates concerned are those for Syria, Mesopotamia and Palestine.

The French Mandate for Syria is drawn on the same lines as ours for Mesopotamia, though not actually identical with it. There is nothing in it to which we desire to object.

The Mandate for Mesopotamia has passed through several stages, tending in each case to further simplification. It has been shown to, and approved by, the French and Italian Governments, to whom we were under a pledge at San Remo to submit it In its last printed form this Mandate was approved by the Cabinet a few weeks ago . . .

As regards the Palestine Mandate, this Mandate also has passed through several revises. When it was first shown to the French Government it at once excited their vehement criticisms on the ground of its almost exclusively Zionist complexion and of the manner in which the interests and rights of the Arab majority (amounting to about nine-tenths of the population) were ignored. The Italian Government expressed similar apprehensions. It was felt that this would constitute a very serious, and possibly a fatal, objection when the Mandate came ultimately before the Council of the League. The Mandate, therefore, was largely rewritten, and finally received their assent. It was also considered by an Inter-Departmental Conference here, in which the Foreign Office, Board of Trade, War Office and India Office were represented, and which passed the final draft.

In the course of these discussions strong objection was taken to a statement which had been inserted in the Preamble of the first draft to the following effect:— ” Recognising the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the claim which this gives them to reconstitute Palestine as their National Home.”

367 [4996]

It was pointed out (1) that, while the Powers had unquestionably recognised the historical connection of the Jews with Palestine by their formal acceptance of the Balfour Declaration and their textual incorporation of it in the Turkish Peace Treaty drafted at San Remo, this was far from constituting anything in the nature of a legal claim, and that the use of such words might be, and was, indeed, certain to be, used as the basis of all sorts of political claims by the Zionists for the control of Palestinian administration in the future, and ;2) that, while Mr. Balfour’s Declaration had provided for the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, this was not the same thing as the reconstitution of Palestine as a Jewish National Home–an extension of the phrase for which there was no justification, and which was certain to be employed in the future as the basis for claims of the character to which I have referred. On the other hand, the Zionists pleaded for the insertion of some such phrase in the preamble, on the ground that it would make all the difference to the money that they aspired to raise in foreign, countries for the development of Palestine. Mr. Balfour, who interested himself keenly in their case, admitted, however, the force of the above contentions, and, on the eve of leaving for Geneva, suggested an alternative form of words which I am prepared to recommend.

Paragraph 3 of the Preamble would then conclude as follows (vide the words italicised in the Draft-;

” and whereas recognition lias thereby (i.e., by the Treaty of Sevres) been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine, and to the grounds for reconstituting their National Home in that country.”

Simultaneously the Zionists pressed for the concession of preferential rights for themselves in respect of public works, &c, in Article 11.

It was felt unanimously, and was agreed by Mr. Balfour, that there was no ground for making this concession, which ought to be refused. . .

During the last few hours a telegram has been received from Sir H. Samuel, urging that, in order to facilitate the raising of loans by the Palestine Administration, which will otherwise be impossible, words should be added to Article 27, providing that on the termination of the Mandate, the future Government of Palestine shall fully honour the financial obligations incurred by the Palestinian Administration during the period of the Mandate. This appears to be a quite reasonable demand, and I have accordingly added words (italicised at the end of Article 27) in order to meet it. With this explanation, therefore, I hope that the Mandates in the form now submitted may be formally passed and forwarded to the Council of the League.

C. OF K. November 30, 1920.

End/ (Not Continued)

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, montelatici, et al,

It is what it is --- right up to today.

87. The members of the Peel Commission were led by their diagnosis of the situation in Palestine to the conclusion that the obligations imposed upon the Mandatory by the terms of the Mandate were mutually irreconcilable.​

Indeed, their stupid plan was a big flop. So they planned for partition which was also a big flop.

When Britain stuck the UN with the problem, the UN suggested partition that had already flopped and they knew it was going to flop too but they did it anyway and it flopped.

It is amazing how much stupidity can be assembled into such a small group of people

I. That Jew shall not dominate Arab and Arab shall not dominate Jew in Palestine​

II. That Palestine shall be neither a Jewish state nor an Arab state."​

Isn't that precious.

(COMMENT)

Whatever you think should have happened, it is today we have to deal with --- you just can turn-on the old HG Wells Time Machine and play the down over. There is no instant replay.

Maybe, had the Arab Palestinian employed a different strategy, the outcomes would have been different. But that is Monday-Morning Quarterbacking, which we all know doesn't change the actual outcome in Sunday's game.

The Hostile Arab Palestinian has another chance to do something different then to select combat as the mediation method of choice.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

"Whatever you think should have happened, it is today we have to deal with"

So the hostile jew invader (HJI) doesn't need to compromise, only those that the invader stole the land and homes from. Great deal Rocco.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now you are trying to change the argument.

Did the Covenant say certain communities except for Palestine.

I didn't see that in there.

(COMMENT)

First, the Covenant never mentions "Palestine." So why would it make it an exception?

Second, the argument, as specified in Posting #342 was that: "It also had provisional statehood per the League of Nations." And I argue this to be inaccurate; and stated why I believe it to be so.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Now you are trying to change the argument.

Did the Covenant say certain communities except for Palestine.

I didn't see that in there.

(COMMENT)

First, the Covenant never mentions "Palestine." So why would it make it an exception?

Second, the argument, as specified in Posting #342 was that: "It also had provisional statehood per the League of Nations." And I argue this to be inaccurate; and stated why I believe it to be so.

Most Respectfully,
R

No, Palestine had provisional statehood per the League of Nations Covenant, in no way did you demonstrate that this was inaccurate. In fact, Lord Curzon's clarification further confirms that you are full of shit, Rocco.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

This is a 1920 Memo that opens with: "A FINAL decision about Mandates A is required." Whatever this Memo (as a position paper) may imply, this was taken into account and the Mandate in its final form was later approved.

A FINAL decision about Mandates A is required.

When it was first shown to the French Government it at once excited their vehement criticisms on the ground of its almost exclusively Zionist complexion and of the manner in which the interests and rights of the Arab majority (amounting to about nine-tenths of the population) were ignored. The Italian Government expressed similar apprehensions. I

” and whereas recognition lias thereby (i.e., by the Treaty of Sevres) been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine, and to the grounds for reconstituting their National Home in that country.”

It was felt unanimously, and was agreed by Mr. Balfour, that there was no ground for making this concession, which ought to be refused. . .

(COMMENT)

Of course there will be, in any such undertaking, some apprehension.

Yes --- there was a historic connection recognized.

And of course, Lord Balfour leaves HM's Government the escape clause on the matter of concessions. But as all good diplomats do, he makes it a double-edged sworn. HM's Government can avoid concessions on either side.

But as we all know, when this was written, it was just short of two years later before the Mandate was adopted.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

It really doesn't matter Rocco. The European colonial project for Palestine was not digestible for even the other rabid colonizers. There was no historical connection, and everyone knew it.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, montelatici, et al,

It is what it is --- right up to today.

87. The members of the Peel Commission were led by their diagnosis of the situation in Palestine to the conclusion that the obligations imposed upon the Mandatory by the terms of the Mandate were mutually irreconcilable.​

Indeed, their stupid plan was a big flop. So they planned for partition which was also a big flop.

When Britain stuck the UN with the problem, the UN suggested partition that had already flopped and they knew it was going to flop too but they did it anyway and it flopped.

It is amazing how much stupidity can be assembled into such a small group of people

I. That Jew shall not dominate Arab and Arab shall not dominate Jew in Palestine​

II. That Palestine shall be neither a Jewish state nor an Arab state."​

Isn't that precious.

(COMMENT)

Whatever you think should have happened, it is today we have to deal with --- you just can turn-on the old HG Wells Time Machine and play the down over. There is no instant replay.

Maybe, had the Arab Palestinian employed a different strategy, the outcomes would have been different. But that is Monday-Morning Quarterbacking, which we all know doesn't change the actual outcome in Sunday's game.

The Hostile Arab Palestinian has another chance to do something different then to select combat as the mediation method of choice.

Most Respectfully,
R

Maybe, had the Arab Palestinian employed a different strategy,...​

What other strategy do you think would have worked?

Times are changing and different strategies are being pursued. And success is looking promising.

 

[Phoenall]

...You forget that the land was given to the Jews while the arab muslims received trans Jordan. That is the only partition that was legal. Now if you push this islamonazi propaganda then all the nations in the M.E. are also illegal as they were created under the same mandate laws.

True...

Which raises the question...

"Why are Arabs still occupying the West Bank and Gaza?"

These occupiers need to leave Israeli territory.

You are posting a Hasbara map copyrighted in 2005? What's the point?

The point is the map uses the co-ordinates of the LoN Mandate for Palestine grant of land in Palestine for the Jewish national home. So it does not matter what date the copyright goes on ( which can change every year under copyright laws to keep the intellectual rights of the literary work ) what matters is the data used to draw the map.

Are you also saying that the map of trans Jordan is also hasbara, which means that Jordan can not exist under your criteria