Palestinian Peace Proposal

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

So you say. In 1918, the Ottoman Empire unconditionally surrendered to the Allied Powers.

Rocco, you keep dancing around the most important facts.

The demise of the Ottoman Empire, in fact, 'resolved' the Eastern question. Yet while Britain and France inherited the political controls they significantly did not annex Near and Middle East territory outright.

The establishment of a national home for an alien people in that country was a violation of the legitimate and fundamental rights of the inhabitants. The League of Nations did not possess the power, any more than the British Government did, to dispose of Palestine, or to grant to the Jews any political or territorial rights in that country. - See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978 ​

The right to territorial integrity, mentioned as a pre-existing Palestinian right in subsequent UN resolutions, was already implied in post WWI treaties. There are several other laws that back up the right to territorial integrity.

You yourself stated previously that the land was not up for grabs. You did not mention, however, whose land was not up for grabs.

(COMMENT)

There is some confusion here. The Allied Powers --- victorious over the Central Powers --- assumed control over the captured and occupied territory in question. This is FACT --- no tap dancing and no word smithing: the Allied Powers established the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration (Middle East)(EOTA) in June 1918 extending Allied authority nearly everywhere in the Middle East. What little that remained under the control of the Central Powers and the Ottoman Empire was demilitarized and demobilized with the signing the Unconditional Surrender (Armistice of Mudros) in October 1918.

No authority or rights of sovereignty went to any Arab entity. In 1918, there were no rights to "territorial integrity!" A country either had control or did not have control. There was no "right to territorial integrity" and there were no UN resolutions that imply (in 1918) any such notion because their was no UN; in fact --- at the time the Ottoman Empire surrendered (30 October 1918), there was no League of Nations until 1919:

• 04/28/1919
  
  League of Nations covenant - Peace Treaty of Versailles, Peace Conference
  • Provisional Recognition to Certain Communities
  • Administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.

Even the universe has a point of origin. What is the "point of origin" for this "pre-existing Palestinian right to territorial integrity?"

For as long as there have been countries and leaders of cultures and countries, there has been this concept of "territorial integrity." Today, we have the concept of humanitarian intervention under Article 73.b of the United Nations Charter "to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples." The contemporary or more modern idea of "territorial integrity" began in 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia (composed of the: Treaty of Münster --- and --- Treaty of Osnabrück). which marked the end of the 30 Years War. In this sense (and particularly relevant to the "Question of Palestine") is the idea that saw the fall of Empires and the end to "nations as the personal possession" of their monarchs and the beginning of respect for the "territorial integrity of other nations." It is even more important to understand that Westphalia Peace DID NOT see an end to imperial expansion or the development of the complex Hegemonies; especially since the European nations applied one rule to themselves and another to the peoples whom they encountered outside of Europe over which they spread their imperial umbrella or the parasol of their Hegemony.

The three basic principles of the Westphalia System (a pure West Powers concept) ---- and ---- the original concept behind the right of self-determination were:

1. The principle of the sovereignty of states and the fundamental right of political self determination.
2. The principle of (legal) equality between states.
3. The principle of non-intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state.

Neither of the dual component treaties of the Westphalia Compact even approach the idea of sovereignty as a "right" --- but rather as an outcome. Even through the very last decade of the 20th Century, the political position of the NATO Alliance wast that "humanity and democracy [were] two principles essentially irrelevant to the original Westphalian order." (NATO Secretary General Javier Solana, 1998) At the opening of the 21st Century, the Westphalia Compact (again the pre-existing right of which you speak) was summarized as "obsolete." "The core of the concept of Europe after 1945 was and still is a rejection of the European balance-of-power principle and the hegemonic ambitions of individual states that had emerged following the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, a rejection which took the form of closer meshing of vital interests and the transfer of nation-state sovereign rights to supranational European institutions." (German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, Humboldt Speech 2000)

To go back to your original implication that the Mandatory did NOT have the authority to partition and make sovereign the territory of Palestine, as determined by the original Allied Powers, is incredibly off the track. Neither the Independence of Jordan (1946) nor the Partition Plan of the remainder (1947) were outside the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League (in this case the successor the UN), or outside the intent defined by the Council of the League of Nations (in this case the successor the UN). The 1946 recognition by the UK of the Sovereignty of Jordan was well within the the Article 22 parameters of a Certain Communities" and the recognition of such a community to stand alone. The 1947 Partition Plan was not a solution developed by the Mandatory, but a solution developed by the General Assembly (the successor to the League of Nations). The Arabs of the region to which the Mandate applied, have not evidence to support the claim that they have some pre-existing right to sovereignty over the entirety of the landscape. They have only the right to self determination over the landscape which they can control (which is almost nothing).

REMEMBER: The backbone behind the Westphalia System, the League of Nations Covenant, the UN Charter, and the regional treaties is the establishment of peace and security. Absent any support by the Hostile Arab Palestinians to achieve that objective (Regional Peace and Mutual Security) there exists no reason for other nations to go to war to support a failed state (Islamic Resistance Jihadist and Fedayeen of Palestine) over a prosperous and economically developing state (Establish Jewish State of Israel).

Whether you state at the turn of the 20th Century, or the turn of the 21st Century, the incitement to violence was then and is now the Hostile Arab Palestinian that is parasitic to the region. They have not demonstrated their ability to --- at any time --- they are able to stand alone. And original Article 22 requirement for indiependence. And the very last thing the region needs is another unrestricted failed state of radical Islamist running loose.

Most Respectfully,
R

Your facts seem to be basically correct. However, you draw your conclusions be looking at the facts through Israel colored glasses.

They did (Britain and the LoN) "occupy" and "control" the territories but they never annexed those territories. The territories were held in trust for the people until they could stand alone.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

So you say. In 1918, the Ottoman Empire unconditionally surrendered to the Allied Powers.

Rocco, you keep dancing around the most important facts.

The demise of the Ottoman Empire, in fact, 'resolved' the Eastern question. Yet while Britain and France inherited the political controls they significantly did not annex Near and Middle East territory outright.

The establishment of a national home for an alien people in that country was a violation of the legitimate and fundamental rights of the inhabitants. The League of Nations did not possess the power, any more than the British Government did, to dispose of Palestine, or to grant to the Jews any political or territorial rights in that country. - See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978 ​

The right to territorial integrity, mentioned as a pre-existing Palestinian right in subsequent UN resolutions, was already implied in post WWI treaties. There are several other laws that back up the right to territorial integrity.

You yourself stated previously that the land was not up for grabs. You did not mention, however, whose land was not up for grabs.

(COMMENT)

There is some confusion here. The Allied Powers --- victorious over the Central Powers --- assumed control over the captured and occupied territory in question. This is FACT --- no tap dancing and no word smithing: the Allied Powers established the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration (Middle East)(EOTA) in June 1918 extending Allied authority nearly everywhere in the Middle East. What little that remained under the control of the Central Powers and the Ottoman Empire was demilitarized and demobilized with the signing the Unconditional Surrender (Armistice of Mudros) in October 1918.

No authority or rights of sovereignty went to any Arab entity. In 1918, there were no rights to "territorial integrity!" A country either had control or did not have control. There was no "right to territorial integrity" and there were no UN resolutions that imply (in 1918) any such notion because their was no UN; in fact --- at the time the Ottoman Empire surrendered (30 October 1918), there was no League of Nations until 1919:

• 04/28/1919
  
  League of Nations covenant - Peace Treaty of Versailles, Peace Conference
  • Provisional Recognition to Certain Communities
  • Administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.

Even the universe has a point of origin. What is the "point of origin" for this "pre-existing Palestinian right to territorial integrity?"

For as long as there have been countries and leaders of cultures and countries, there has been this concept of "territorial integrity." Today, we have the concept of humanitarian intervention under Article 73.b of the United Nations Charter "to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples." The contemporary or more modern idea of "territorial integrity" began in 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia (composed of the: Treaty of Münster --- and --- Treaty of Osnabrück). which marked the end of the 30 Years War. In this sense (and particularly relevant to the "Question of Palestine") is the idea that saw the fall of Empires and the end to "nations as the personal possession" of their monarchs and the beginning of respect for the "territorial integrity of other nations." It is even more important to understand that Westphalia Peace DID NOT see an end to imperial expansion or the development of the complex Hegemonies; especially since the European nations applied one rule to themselves and another to the peoples whom they encountered outside of Europe over which they spread their imperial umbrella or the parasol of their Hegemony.

The three basic principles of the Westphalia System (a pure West Powers concept) ---- and ---- the original concept behind the right of self-determination were:

1. The principle of the sovereignty of states and the fundamental right of political self determination.
2. The principle of (legal) equality between states.
3. The principle of non-intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state.

Neither of the dual component treaties of the Westphalia Compact even approach the idea of sovereignty as a "right" --- but rather as an outcome. Even through the very last decade of the 20th Century, the political position of the NATO Alliance wast that "humanity and democracy [were] two principles essentially irrelevant to the original Westphalian order." (NATO Secretary General Javier Solana, 1998) At the opening of the 21st Century, the Westphalia Compact (again the pre-existing right of which you speak) was summarized as "obsolete." "The core of the concept of Europe after 1945 was and still is a rejection of the European balance-of-power principle and the hegemonic ambitions of individual states that had emerged following the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, a rejection which took the form of closer meshing of vital interests and the transfer of nation-state sovereign rights to supranational European institutions." (German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, Humboldt Speech 2000)

To go back to your original implication that the Mandatory did NOT have the authority to partition and make sovereign the territory of Palestine, as determined by the original Allied Powers, is incredibly off the track. Neither the Independence of Jordan (1946) nor the Partition Plan of the remainder (1947) were outside the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League (in this case the successor the UN), or outside the intent defined by the Council of the League of Nations (in this case the successor the UN). The 1946 recognition by the UK of the Sovereignty of Jordan was well within the the Article 22 parameters of a Certain Communities" and the recognition of such a community to stand alone. The 1947 Partition Plan was not a solution developed by the Mandatory, but a solution developed by the General Assembly (the successor to the League of Nations). The Arabs of the region to which the Mandate applied, have not evidence to support the claim that they have some pre-existing right to sovereignty over the entirety of the landscape. They have only the right to self determination over the landscape which they can control (which is almost nothing).

REMEMBER: The backbone behind the Westphalia System, the League of Nations Covenant, the UN Charter, and the regional treaties is the establishment of peace and security. Absent any support by the Hostile Arab Palestinians to achieve that objective (Regional Peace and Mutual Security) there exists no reason for other nations to go to war to support a failed state (Islamic Resistance Jihadist and Fedayeen of Palestine) over a prosperous and economically developing state (Establish Jewish State of Israel).

Whether you state at the turn of the 20th Century, or the turn of the 21st Century, the incitement to violence was then and is now the Hostile Arab Palestinian that is parasitic to the region. They have not demonstrated their ability to --- at any time --- they are able to stand alone. And original Article 22 requirement for indiependence. And the very last thing the region needs is another unrestricted failed state of radical Islamist running loose.

Most Respectfully,
R

Your facts seem to be basically correct. However, you draw your conclusions be looking at the facts through Israel colored glasses.

They did (Britain and the LoN) "occupy" and "control" the territories but they never annexed those territories. The territories were held in trust for the people until they could stand alone.

Can you elaborate on that? What did he say that was bias.?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Everything that was done, was done in the light of day. It was done pursuant to the Council of the League of Nations and later, the General Assembly.

They did (Britain and the LoN) "occupy" and "control" the territories but they never annexed those territories. The territories were held in trust for the people until they could stand alone.

(COMMENT)

In every major decision, there will be dissenting views and opinions. Annexation was not required because there was never an intent to extend citizenship or permanent soverty over the territories.

A common misunderstanding is the difference between a "Mandate" and a "Trusteeship." They are not one in the same.

• A League of Nations mandate was a legal status for certain territories transferred from the control of one country to another following World War I, or the legal instruments that contained the internationally agreed-upon terms for administering the territory on behalf of the League.

The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917. By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage 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. The Mandate reproduces the Balfour Declaration almost in full in its preamble and states that "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country". SOURCE: Series of League of Nations Publications VI.A. MANDATE SYSTEM 1945. VI.A. 1​

• Trusteeship was designed to supervise the government of trust territories and to lead them to self-government or independence.

At the end of WWII and with the institution of the UN as the Successor to the League of Nations, there were a dozen Mandates that converted to Trusteeships. Palestine was one of those Mandates (less Trans-Jordan which was being granted Independence under the Treaty of Alliance between His Majesty in respect of the United Kingdom and His Highness the Amir of Transjordan. Came into force on 17 June 1946, United Nations Treaty Series, vol 6, pp 143–175).

--- Article 1 ---
His Majesty The King recognizes Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof.​

Unfortunately, there was no pledge to the Arab Palestinian that they would be granted (in the sense that a power would give them) independence. The promise was made to the Sharif of Mecca and King of the Hejaz, an allied partner opposing the Ottoman Empire and the Central Powers.

The UN accepted the responsibility of the Mandate (designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917 --- Jewish national home, as laid down in the Mandate, and the development of self-governing institutions). The Article 6 Jewish Immigrants, were --- in fact --- as much a part of the inhabitants of these territories, as the Arab Palestinian --- having immigrated, established permanent residence, and assumed the role in establishment of the Jewish National Home. The Article 6 Jewish Immigrants, encouraged by the Mandate, were no less afforded the same rights of self-determination as any other culture; and acquisition of Palestinian Article 7 citizenship by taking-up permanent residence in Palestine (afforded all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National Home). In the eyes of the Allied Powers --- the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust --- applied as much to the Jewish Settlers as encouraged Immigrants as it did to the Arab indigenous population formerly managed under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration.

(HELD IN TRUST FOR THE PEOPLE UNTIL THEY COULD STAND ALONE)

The State of Palestine, a de jure sovereign state of which independence was declared on 15 November 1988 by the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated, has not been able to establish a government that can remotely appear as one which can transition from one leadership administration to the next; even under its own rules. the dysfunctional and often amateurish Palestinian leadership has been a problem for years, and must be overcome for meaningful peacemaking progress to occur. The European Union is the principle financial donor to Palestine.

Behind the numbers: Cairo donor conference
Following the announcement of the pledges at the Conference on Palestine: Reconstructing Gaza in Cairo, speculation about the Palestinian government of national consensus, ranging from corruption to limiting support to Gaza, has appeared in articles and on social media. Some articles went so far as to claim that the funds raised at the conference in Cairo will be diverted to the Palestinian Authority (PA)’s budget. However, this speculation could not be further from the truth.

Summary⎙ Print The financial commitments announced by donors at the Cairo conference and allocated to the Gaza Strip will not be diverted to the PA and the West Bank, as some media outlets have claimed.
Author Dana ErekatPosted October 28, 2014
While it is true that only about half of the amount announced at the donors conference in Cairo is specifically for Gaza, the other half will not be diverted to the West Bank.

To understand the story behind the numbers, one must first grasp the complexities of aid management in Palestine. There are over 70 countries and agencies that provide support to Palestine on an annual basis. While some countries project their support in financial years, others do so in their own fiscal years. While some donors project up to four-year commitments, others project only one. However, in the interest of simplifying matters, donation commitments to Palestine can be divided into three categories:​

1. 1. Budgetary support: These funds support recurrent budgetary expenditures such as salaries, health care and electrical bills. They include budgetary support to Gaza, which currently amounts to almost 50% of the budget.
   2. Developmental support: These funds go to investment and technical assistance projects in various sectors, in both the West Bank and Gaza.
   3. Humanitarian support: These funds go through various UN and non-governmental agencies, most prominently the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which provides services to Palestinian refugees worldwide.

The time between the commitment of funds and their disbursement may range anywhere from a few months to years. Distinguishing between commitments and disbursements and understanding how disbursements happen are critical to understanding the flow of funds in Palestine. The disbursements of the different commitments can come through a number of channels, including but not limited to the following:​

1. 1. The Palestinian Ministry of Finance: The ministry has a number of mechanisms under its Central Treasury Account that channel both budgetary and developmental support. While all budgetary support goes through the Ministry of Finance, only about 25% of developmental support does.
   2. Direct support to ministries: Payments are made directly to the ministries to implement projects.
   3. UN agencies: Aid is channeled directly to UN agencies to implement their projects in accordance with each agency’s specialty. In Palestine, most UN agencies coordinate with the Palestinian government to identify priorities and areas of intervention. Funds go directly to these agencies for implementation.
   4. NGOs and other implementing agencies: For the most part, there is little coordination with the government through this channel. Priorities and areas of intervention are not always aligned with national plans. Unfortunately, for the most part, the disconnect between the government and these agencies leaves little room for accountability.

Palestine does not meet the criteria.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Everything that was done, was done in the light of day. It was done pursuant to the Council of the League of Nations and later, the General Assembly.

They did (Britain and the LoN) "occupy" and "control" the territories but they never annexed those territories. The territories were held in trust for the people until they could stand alone.

(COMMENT)

In every major decision, there will be dissenting views and opinions. Annexation was not required because there was never an intent to extend citizenship or permanent soverty over the territories.

A common misunderstanding is the difference between a "Mandate" and a "Trusteeship." They are not one in the same.

• A League of Nations mandate was a legal status for certain territories transferred from the control of one country to another following World War I, or the legal instruments that contained the internationally agreed-upon terms for administering the territory on behalf of the League.

The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917. By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage 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. The Mandate reproduces the Balfour Declaration almost in full in its preamble and states that "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country". SOURCE: Series of League of Nations Publications VI.A. MANDATE SYSTEM 1945. VI.A. 1​

• Trusteeship was designed to supervise the government of trust territories and to lead them to self-government or independence.

At the end of WWII and with the institution of the UN as the Successor to the League of Nations, there were a dozen Mandates that converted to Trusteeships. Palestine was one of those Mandates (less Trans-Jordan which was being granted Independence under the Treaty of Alliance between His Majesty in respect of the United Kingdom and His Highness the Amir of Transjordan. Came into force on 17 June 1946, United Nations Treaty Series, vol 6, pp 143–175).

--- Article 1 ---
His Majesty The King recognizes Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof.​

Unfortunately, there was no pledge to the Arab Palestinian that they would be granted (in the sense that a power would give them) independence. The promise was made to the Sharif of Mecca and King of the Hejaz, an allied partner opposing the Ottoman Empire and the Central Powers.

The UN accepted the responsibility of the Mandate (designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917 --- Jewish national home, as laid down in the Mandate, and the development of self-governing institutions). The Article 6 Jewish Immigrants, were --- in fact --- as much a part of the inhabitants of these territories, as the Arab Palestinian --- having immigrated, established permanent residence, and assumed the role in establishment of the Jewish National Home. The Article 6 Jewish Immigrants, encouraged by the Mandate, were no less afforded the same rights of self-determination as any other culture; and acquisition of Palestinian Article 7 citizenship by taking-up permanent residence in Palestine (afforded all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National Home). In the eyes of the Allied Powers --- the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust --- applied as much to the Jewish Settlers as encouraged Immigrants as it did to the Arab indigenous population formerly managed under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration.

(HELD IN TRUST FOR THE PEOPLE UNTIL THEY COULD STAND ALONE)

The State of Palestine, a de jure sovereign state of which independence was declared on 15 November 1988 by the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated, has not been able to establish a government that can remotely appear as one which can transition from one leadership administration to the next; even under its own rules. the dysfunctional and often amateurish Palestinian leadership has been a problem for years, and must be overcome for meaningful peacemaking progress to occur. The European Union is the principle financial donor to Palestine.

Behind the numbers: Cairo donor conference
Following the announcement of the pledges at the Conference on Palestine: Reconstructing Gaza in Cairo, speculation about the Palestinian government of national consensus, ranging from corruption to limiting support to Gaza, has appeared in articles and on social media. Some articles went so far as to claim that the funds raised at the conference in Cairo will be diverted to the Palestinian Authority (PA)’s budget. However, this speculation could not be further from the truth.

Summary⎙ Print The financial commitments announced by donors at the Cairo conference and allocated to the Gaza Strip will not be diverted to the PA and the West Bank, as some media outlets have claimed.
Author Dana ErekatPosted October 28, 2014
While it is true that only about half of the amount announced at the donors conference in Cairo is specifically for Gaza, the other half will not be diverted to the West Bank.

To understand the story behind the numbers, one must first grasp the complexities of aid management in Palestine. There are over 70 countries and agencies that provide support to Palestine on an annual basis. While some countries project their support in financial years, others do so in their own fiscal years. While some donors project up to four-year commitments, others project only one. However, in the interest of simplifying matters, donation commitments to Palestine can be divided into three categories:​

1. 1. Budgetary support: These funds support recurrent budgetary expenditures such as salaries, health care and electrical bills. They include budgetary support to Gaza, which currently amounts to almost 50% of the budget.
   2. Developmental support: These funds go to investment and technical assistance projects in various sectors, in both the West Bank and Gaza.
   3. Humanitarian support: These funds go through various UN and non-governmental agencies, most prominently the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which provides services to Palestinian refugees worldwide.

The time between the commitment of funds and their disbursement may range anywhere from a few months to years. Distinguishing between commitments and disbursements and understanding how disbursements happen are critical to understanding the flow of funds in Palestine. The disbursements of the different commitments can come through a number of channels, including but not limited to the following:​

1. 1. The Palestinian Ministry of Finance: The ministry has a number of mechanisms under its Central Treasury Account that channel both budgetary and developmental support. While all budgetary support goes through the Ministry of Finance, only about 25% of developmental support does.
   2. Direct support to ministries: Payments are made directly to the ministries to implement projects.
   3. UN agencies: Aid is channeled directly to UN agencies to implement their projects in accordance with each agency’s specialty. In Palestine, most UN agencies coordinate with the Palestinian government to identify priorities and areas of intervention. Funds go directly to these agencies for implementation.
   4. NGOs and other implementing agencies: For the most part, there is little coordination with the government through this channel. Priorities and areas of intervention are not always aligned with national plans. Unfortunately, for the most part, the disconnect between the government and these agencies leaves little room for accountability.

Palestine does not meet the criteria.

Most Respectfully,
R

There are only a couple relevant points about the Mandate.

It did not annex and therefore could not transfer any Palestinian land. It remained Palestinian land. Palestine remained a "legal entity" after the termination of the Mandate.

You have posted page after page of stuff about the Mandate that, although is mostly accurate, is irrelevant. The bottom line is that Britain cut and ran without accomplishing anything they were charged to do.

For thirty years Britain tried to impose, at the point of a gun, a stupid plan that was universally rejected by the native population. And the Palestinians had every right to reject the plan. They knew, or should have known, that their plan was going to create problems before they took on that roll. They were told repeatedly about these problems. Facts on the ground told them the same thing. Yet they were too stupid to address any of these problems. They just plodded on year after year in their clueless state.

Eventually the whole thing blew up in their faces. They were being shot at from both sides. So they folded their tent and kicked the can down the road to the UN.

Britain's only accomplishment was to start a war that continues today. The sad part is that they still support the war over peace.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I started where the allegations started on the anti-Israeli site called "ItisApartheid.Org"; with the List of Israeli Violations. So, you want to start at a different place. That is OK with me. Just remember, the official determinations, decisions, orders and decrees made before May 1948, could not have been made by the Jewish People, the Jewish Agency or the State of Israel. The Jewish Immigrants exercised no sovereignty or legislative authority; the Jewish Agency was an Article 4 Mandate Invention for coordination purposes --- a public body (an agency operating as a component of a government process - but not an official government activity itself) for the purpose of providing advise to the Mandatory and fostering cooperation between the Article 6 Jewish Immigrants and the Mandatory on social, economic and issues affecting the responsibility for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 1917 Balfour Declaration.

I was trying to limit my reply to the parameters of your comment in Posting #82 with regards to "Israeli Crimes." Israeli crimes cannot truly exist prior to mid-night 14/15 May 1948. But I did follow your logic and have no problem with it. It merely expands my commentary.

Thoughtful post. It did, of course, include all of your apologies for Israel. And, of course, much is based on unsubstantiated assumptions.

"The Palestine Mandate was invalid on three grounds set out hereinafter.

• "1. The first ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that by endorsing the Balfour Declaration
• "2. The second ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that it violated, in spirit and in letter, Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations,
• "... The third ground of invalidity of the Mandate lies in the fact that its endorsement and implementation of the Balfour Declaration conflicted with the assurances and pledges given to the Arabs during the First World War by Great Britain and the Allied Powers.

You have to start at the beginning not in the middle.

(COMMENT)

Before I rant on the timeline, and the interpretation of certain events, again I would be remiss if I did not mention the first Palestine Arab Congress (PAC)(AKA: Arab National Congress) (27 January to 10 February 1919), the outcomes of which are not in the on-line archive of the UN Information System on the Question of Palestine (UNISPAL) listing. (I'm sure they have it, I just don't see it in the white or dark side of the net.) The importance of the PAC is that it concluded in time to make the Paris Peace Conference. The PAC did submit it through quasi- Diplomatic channels by Cable to the Paris Peace Conference. I can only speculate why it was not presented at the same time as the Jewish Presentation (or maybe it was and just was not taken seriously). In any event --- you can hardly find any reference to the PAC Cable relative to the Paris Peace Conference, yet quite clearly see the Jewish presentation. The Paris Peace Conference was heavily influenced by the presence of the BIG FOUR:

• President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson;
• Prime Minister of Great Britain, David Lloyd George;
• Prime Minister of France, Georges Clemenceau;
• Prime Minister of Italy, Vittorio Emanuele Orlando.

The BIG FOUR were not the only Principle Allied Powers, but they were the backbone behind the leadership of the Allied Powers and the Council for the League of Nations. And that may be the key behind the reason the PAC Cable was so easily dismissed. The PAC (viewed as composed of characters that were less then helpful to the allies during the war) send what was interpreted as "demands" to the Allied Powers. Included in these demands were items that simply could not be considered:

• That the Allied Powers renounce the Balfour Declaration.
• The recognition of a Regional "Arab Union."
• The independence of a greater Syria that would include the Mandate for Palestine.

This was, of course, impossible as it would abrogate the Sykes-Picot Accords and interfere with the promises made to Arab-Bedouin Princes that did provide active combat assistance to the Allied Powers during the War. Additionally, the Arab-Ottoman included a demand that All foreign treaties (meaning those treaties concluded by the Allied Powers) affecting the entire region were to be set aside and voided. This was framed as if the PAC had been victorious in the War against the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Army of the Central Powers. One can only imagine what the BIG FOUR must have thought when reviewing the PAC Demands (no wonder the Arabs sent it by cable). The entire purpose of The Paris Peace Conference was to allow the Allied victors to set the peace terms for the defeated Central Powers; not to acquiesce to the PAC.

The important sequence of events that are relevant to the challenge that: --- --- The Mandate for Palestine was invalid: (Short Answer: It was not.)

• 08/10/1922
  
  The Palestine Order in Council
  • Definition of boundaries, formation of districts,
  • Grant of pardon & Remission of fines,
  • Judicial and Legislative Authority --- creation of Ordinances,
  • Nationality, Citizenship, voting and elections, etc.
• 07/24/1922
  
  Mandate for Palestine
  • Approved by LoN
  • Political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home,
  • Development of self-governing institutions,
  • Safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine.
  • Establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine.
• 04/25/1920
  
  (1) Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine mandates ---- (2) San Remo Convention
  • The terms of the mandates in respect of the above territories will be formulated by the Principal Allied Powers and submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for approval.
  • Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres] to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection.
• 04/28/1919
  
  League of Nations covenant - Peace Treaty of Versailles, Peace Conference
  • Provisional Recognition to Certain Communities
  • Administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.
• 02/03/1919 Paris peace conference
  • Five individual Treaties are made:
    • A. Each treaty is named for districts around Paris.
    • B. Germany = Versailles
    • C. Austria = St. Germain
    • D. Hungary = Trianon
    • E. Bulgaria = Neuilly
    • 
      F. Ottoman Empire = Sevres: 08/10/1920
      
      Treaty of Peace Between the Allied and the Associate Powers and Turkey
• 01/03/1919 Faisal-Weizmann Agreement
  • Arabs and the Jewish people working out the consummation of their national aspirations,
  • Established and maintained in their respective territories.
• 11/02/1917
  
  Balfour Declaration
  • Declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations,
  • Intent to establish in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people
• 05/16/1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement
  • That France and Great Britain are prepared to recognize and protect an independent Arab states or a confederation of Arab states, under the suzerainty of an Arab chief.

The Balfour Declaration, while not a specific topic, was discussed in the reference frame of "national aspirations" of both the Arab and the Jewish in what culminated into a Arab-Jewish Treaty know as the Faisal (Arab)-Weizmann (Jewish) Agreement. The first official Arab rejection of the Balfour Declaration comes with the feeder arrangements into the Paris Peace Agreement, in that same year (JAN) 1919; just over a month later --- February 1919. As the Ottoman Empire had unconditionally surrendered
[Armistice of Mudros, (Oct. 30, 1918)], the matter was then placed in the hands of the Allied Powers.

It was for the BIG FOUR and the Allied Powers to decide what the best course of action was to take; and not the PAC. The decision on the course of action to take relative to the Jewish Homeland Issue and Palestine, were essentially made before the Covenant. The Mandate was approved by the Council of the League of Nations. It did not require review and approval of the PAC. The Actions taken by the Mandatory, appointed by the Council of the League of Nations, were reported to and reviewed by the Council. The Council had the authority to alter or amend the Mandate, or to approve such changes to the course of action as they may find necessary. The Mandate was not a stone table that could not be altered. Remembering that in the beginning, the intent was to establish a Jewish National Home. The protection to the former enemy indigenous population was in the area of civil and religious rights --- nothing more. At that time, they had not other special protections that were expressly articulated. The establishment of the Jewish National Home (a concept) was a principle goal expressly mandated.

• "1. The first ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that by endorsing the Balfour Declaration
  • The San Remo Convention approved the outline to the Mandate. It was approved by the Council of the League of Nations. That makes it valid.
• "2. The second ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that it violated, in spirit and in letter, Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations,
  • The spirit and intent of the Article 22 Clauses is defined by the authors and NOT the PAC or and derivative Arab organization. There is no specific reference to Palestine in Article 22. It is more likely that if there was a specific terrirtory in mind -- it would have been Trans-Jordan, a carve-out and set aside for the promises made the the Bedouin Chiefs.
• "... The third ground of invalidity of the Mandate lies in the fact that its endorsement and implementation of the Balfour Declaration conflicted with the assurances and pledges given to the Arabs during the First World War by Great Britain and the Allied Powers.
  • The pledges made to the Arab Chiefs were (eventually) engaged and rendered in the form of two Kingdoms that because independent. There was not other specific promises made to the Arabs. Prince Faisal and Prince Abdullah each received their independent Kingdoms as promised. What pledges were made --- were made to the Arabs on the side of the allies. NOT Arabs like:
• President All Palestine Government
  

  Hajj Amin al-Husseini A Commission Officer in the Ottoman Army​

  Prime Minister All Palestine Government
  

  Ahmed Hilmi Pasha A General Officer in the Ottoman Army​

(PERSONALLY)

I think the Arab and the PAC did not do the Palestinian Arab any good in the very beginning by attempting to make demands of the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

That is OK with me. Just remember, the official determinations, decisions, orders and decrees made before May 1948, could not have been made by the Jewish People, the Jewish Agency or the State of Israel.​

Of course that is not true.

Following rejection by the Ottoman authorities of his ideas, Herzl approached the British, German, Belgian and Italian Governments and such far-flung locations as Cyprus, East Africa and the Congo were considered, but did not materialize. The creation of a Jewish State in Palestine became the avowed aim of zionism, zealously pressed by Dr. Chaim Weizmann when he came to head the movement. - See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978 ​

The Zionists were all over the place trying to sell their colonial project.

Similarly, a number of Jewish organizations such as the Colonisation Department of the Zionist Organization, financed by the Keren ha-Yesod, were actively engaged in acquisition of land both for individual immigrant families as well as for the Yishuv or Jewish settlements. - See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978 ​

AND ! ! ! weren't the arabs doing the same thing, and failing because they fought on the wrong side

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I started where the allegations started on the anti-Israeli site called "ItisApartheid.Org"; with the List of Israeli Violations. So, you want to start at a different place. That is OK with me. Just remember, the official determinations, decisions, orders and decrees made before May 1948, could not have been made by the Jewish People, the Jewish Agency or the State of Israel. The Jewish Immigrants exercised no sovereignty or legislative authority; the Jewish Agency was an Article 4 Mandate Invention for coordination purposes --- a public body (an agency operating as a component of a government process - but not an official government activity itself) for the purpose of providing advise to the Mandatory and fostering cooperation between the Article 6 Jewish Immigrants and the Mandatory on social, economic and issues affecting the responsibility for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 1917 Balfour Declaration.

I was trying to limit my reply to the parameters of your comment in Posting #82 with regards to "Israeli Crimes." Israeli crimes cannot truly exist prior to mid-night 14/15 May 1948. But I did follow your logic and have no problem with it. It merely expands my commentary.

Thoughtful post. It did, of course, include all of your apologies for Israel. And, of course, much is based on unsubstantiated assumptions.

"The Palestine Mandate was invalid on three grounds set out hereinafter.

• "1. The first ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that by endorsing the Balfour Declaration
• "2. The second ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that it violated, in spirit and in letter, Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations,
• "... The third ground of invalidity of the Mandate lies in the fact that its endorsement and implementation of the Balfour Declaration conflicted with the assurances and pledges given to the Arabs during the First World War by Great Britain and the Allied Powers.

You have to start at the beginning not in the middle.

(COMMENT)

Before I rant on the timeline, and the interpretation of certain events, again I would be remiss if I did not mention the first Palestine Arab Congress (PAC)(AKA: Arab National Congress) (27 January to 10 February 1919), the outcomes of which are not in the on-line archive of the UN Information System on the Question of Palestine (UNISPAL) listing. (I'm sure they have it, I just don't see it in the white or dark side of the net.) The importance of the PAC is that it concluded in time to make the Paris Peace Conference. The PAC did submit it through quasi- Diplomatic channels by Cable to the Paris Peace Conference. I can only speculate why it was not presented at the same time as the Jewish Presentation (or maybe it was and just was not taken seriously). In any event --- you can hardly find any reference to the PAC Cable relative to the Paris Peace Conference, yet quite clearly see the Jewish presentation. The Paris Peace Conference was heavily influenced by the presence of the BIG FOUR:

• President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson;
• Prime Minister of Great Britain, David Lloyd George;
• Prime Minister of France, Georges Clemenceau;
• Prime Minister of Italy, Vittorio Emanuele Orlando.

The BIG FOUR were not the only Principle Allied Powers, but they were the backbone behind the leadership of the Allied Powers and the Council for the League of Nations. And that may be the key behind the reason the PAC Cable was so easily dismissed. The PAC (viewed as composed of characters that were less then helpful to the allies during the war) send what was interpreted as "demands" to the Allied Powers. Included in these demands were items that simply could not be considered:

• That the Allied Powers renounce the Balfour Declaration.
• The recognition of a Regional "Arab Union."
• The independence of a greater Syria that would include the Mandate for Palestine.

This was, of course, impossible as it would abrogate the Sykes-Picot Accords and interfere with the promises made to Arab-Bedouin Princes that did provide active combat assistance to the Allied Powers during the War. Additionally, the Arab-Ottoman included a demand that All foreign treaties (meaning those treaties concluded by the Allied Powers) affecting the entire region were to be set aside and voided. This was framed as if the PAC had been victorious in the War against the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Army of the Central Powers. One can only imagine what the BIG FOUR must have thought when reviewing the PAC Demands (no wonder the Arabs sent it by cable). The entire purpose of The Paris Peace Conference was to allow the Allied victors to set the peace terms for the defeated Central Powers; not to acquiesce to the PAC.

The important sequence of events that are relevant to the challenge that: --- --- The Mandate for Palestine was invalid: (Short Answer: It was not.)

• 08/10/1922
  
  The Palestine Order in Council
  • Definition of boundaries, formation of districts,
  • Grant of pardon & Remission of fines,
  • Judicial and Legislative Authority --- creation of Ordinances,
  • Nationality, Citizenship, voting and elections, etc.
• 07/24/1922
  
  Mandate for Palestine
  • Approved by LoN
  • Political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home,
  • Development of self-governing institutions,
  • Safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine.
  • Establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine.
• 04/25/1920
  
  (1) Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine mandates ---- (2) San Remo Convention
  • The terms of the mandates in respect of the above territories will be formulated by the Principal Allied Powers and submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for approval.
  • Turkey hereby undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article [132 of the Treaty of Sevres] to accept any decisions which may be taken in this connection.
• 04/28/1919
  
  League of Nations covenant - Peace Treaty of Versailles, Peace Conference
  • Provisional Recognition to Certain Communities
  • Administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.
• 02/03/1919 Paris peace conference
  • Five individual Treaties are made:
    • A. Each treaty is named for districts around Paris.
    • B. Germany = Versailles
    • C. Austria = St. Germain
    • D. Hungary = Trianon
    • E. Bulgaria = Neuilly
    • 
      F. Ottoman Empire = Sevres: 08/10/1920
      
      Treaty of Peace Between the Allied and the Associate Powers and Turkey
• 01/03/1919 Faisal-Weizmann Agreement
  • Arabs and the Jewish people working out the consummation of their national aspirations,
  • Established and maintained in their respective territories.
• 11/02/1917
  
  Balfour Declaration
  • Declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations,
  • Intent to establish in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people
• 05/16/1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement
  • That France and Great Britain are prepared to recognize and protect an independent Arab states or a confederation of Arab states, under the suzerainty of an Arab chief.

The Balfour Declaration, while not a specific topic, was discussed in the reference frame of "national aspirations" of both the Arab and the Jewish in what culminated into a Arab-Jewish Treaty know as the Faisal (Arab)-Weizmann (Jewish) Agreement. The first official Arab rejection of the Balfour Declaration comes with the feeder arrangements into the Paris Peace Agreement, in that same year (JAN) 1919; just over a month later --- February 1919. As the Ottoman Empire had unconditionally surrendered
[Armistice of Mudros, (Oct. 30, 1918)], the matter was then placed in the hands of the Allied Powers.

It was for the BIG FOUR and the Allied Powers to decide what the best course of action was to take; and not the PAC. The decision on the course of action to take relative to the Jewish Homeland Issue and Palestine, were essentially made before the Covenant. The Mandate was approved by the Council of the League of Nations. It did not require review and approval of the PAC. The Actions taken by the Mandatory, appointed by the Council of the League of Nations, were reported to and reviewed by the Council. The Council had the authority to alter or amend the Mandate, or to approve such changes to the course of action as they may find necessary. The Mandate was not a stone table that could not be altered. Remembering that in the beginning, the intent was to establish a Jewish National Home. The protection to the former enemy indigenous population was in the area of civil and religious rights --- nothing more. At that time, they had not other special protections that were expressly articulated. The establishment of the Jewish National Home (a concept) was a principle goal expressly mandated.

• "1. The first ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that by endorsing the Balfour Declaration
  • The San Remo Convention approved the outline to the Mandate. It was approved by the Council of the League of Nations. That makes it valid.
• "2. The second ground of invalidity of the Mandate is that it violated, in spirit and in letter, Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations,
  • The spirit and intent of the Article 22 Clauses is defined by the authors and NOT the PAC or and derivative Arab organization. There is no specific reference to Palestine in Article 22. It is more likely that if there was a specific terrirtory in mind -- it would have been Trans-Jordan, a carve-out and set aside for the promises made the the Bedouin Chiefs.
• "... The third ground of invalidity of the Mandate lies in the fact that its endorsement and implementation of the Balfour Declaration conflicted with the assurances and pledges given to the Arabs during the First World War by Great Britain and the Allied Powers.
  • The pledges made to the Arab Chiefs were (eventually) engaged and rendered in the form of two Kingdoms that because independent. There was not other specific promises made to the Arabs. Prince Faisal and Prince Abdullah each received their independent Kingdoms as promised. What pledges were made --- were made to the Arabs on the side of the allies. NOT Arabs like:
• President All Palestine Government
  

  Hajj Amin al-Husseini A Commission Officer in the Ottoman Army​

  Prime Minister All Palestine Government
  

  Ahmed Hilmi Pasha A General Officer in the Ottoman Army​

(PERSONALLY)

I think the Arab and the PAC did not do the Palestinian Arab any good in the very beginning by attempting to make demands of the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Jewish Immigrants exercised no sovereignty or legislative authority; the Jewish Agency was an Article 4 Mandate Invention for coordination purposes --- a public body (an agency operating as a component of a government process - but not an official government activity itself) for the purpose of providing advise to the Mandatory and fostering cooperation between the Article 6 Jewish Immigrants and the Mandatory on social, economic and issues affecting the responsibility for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 1917 Balfour Declaration.​

Like I say, the Jewish Agency was part of the Mandate. After the mandate folded the Jewish Agency had no legitimacy in Palestine.

Which mandate are you referring to, as there were two in existence

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Everything that was done, was done in the light of day. It was done pursuant to the Council of the League of Nations and later, the General Assembly.

They did (Britain and the LoN) "occupy" and "control" the territories but they never annexed those territories. The territories were held in trust for the people until they could stand alone.

(COMMENT)

In every major decision, there will be dissenting views and opinions. Annexation was not required because there was never an intent to extend citizenship or permanent soverty over the territories.

A common misunderstanding is the difference between a "Mandate" and a "Trusteeship." They are not one in the same.

• A League of Nations mandate was a legal status for certain territories transferred from the control of one country to another following World War I, or the legal instruments that contained the internationally agreed-upon terms for administering the territory on behalf of the League.

The Palestine Mandate is of a very special character. While it follows the main lines laid down by the Covenant for "A" Mandates, it also contains a number of provisions designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917. By this declaration, the British Government had announced its intention to encourage 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. The Mandate reproduces the Balfour Declaration almost in full in its preamble and states that "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country". SOURCE: Series of League of Nations Publications VI.A. MANDATE SYSTEM 1945. VI.A. 1​

• Trusteeship was designed to supervise the government of trust territories and to lead them to self-government or independence.

At the end of WWII and with the institution of the UN as the Successor to the League of Nations, there were a dozen Mandates that converted to Trusteeships. Palestine was one of those Mandates (less Trans-Jordan which was being granted Independence under the Treaty of Alliance between His Majesty in respect of the United Kingdom and His Highness the Amir of Transjordan. Came into force on 17 June 1946, United Nations Treaty Series, vol 6, pp 143–175).

--- Article 1 ---
His Majesty The King recognizes Trans-Jordan as a fully independent State and His Highness The Amir as the sovereign thereof.​

Unfortunately, there was no pledge to the Arab Palestinian that they would be granted (in the sense that a power would give them) independence. The promise was made to the Sharif of Mecca and King of the Hejaz, an allied partner opposing the Ottoman Empire and the Central Powers.

The UN accepted the responsibility of the Mandate (designed to apply the policy defined by the "Balfour Declaration" of November 2nd, 1917 --- Jewish national home, as laid down in the Mandate, and the development of self-governing institutions). The Article 6 Jewish Immigrants, were --- in fact --- as much a part of the inhabitants of these territories, as the Arab Palestinian --- having immigrated, established permanent residence, and assumed the role in establishment of the Jewish National Home. The Article 6 Jewish Immigrants, encouraged by the Mandate, were no less afforded the same rights of self-determination as any other culture; and acquisition of Palestinian Article 7 citizenship by taking-up permanent residence in Palestine (afforded all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National Home). In the eyes of the Allied Powers --- the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust --- applied as much to the Jewish Settlers as encouraged Immigrants as it did to the Arab indigenous population formerly managed under the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration.

(HELD IN TRUST FOR THE PEOPLE UNTIL THEY COULD STAND ALONE)

The State of Palestine, a de jure sovereign state of which independence was declared on 15 November 1988 by the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in any Palestinian territory that is liberated, has not been able to establish a government that can remotely appear as one which can transition from one leadership administration to the next; even under its own rules. the dysfunctional and often amateurish Palestinian leadership has been a problem for years, and must be overcome for meaningful peacemaking progress to occur. The European Union is the principle financial donor to Palestine.

Behind the numbers: Cairo donor conference
Following the announcement of the pledges at the Conference on Palestine: Reconstructing Gaza in Cairo, speculation about the Palestinian government of national consensus, ranging from corruption to limiting support to Gaza, has appeared in articles and on social media. Some articles went so far as to claim that the funds raised at the conference in Cairo will be diverted to the Palestinian Authority (PA)’s budget. However, this speculation could not be further from the truth.

Summary⎙ Print The financial commitments announced by donors at the Cairo conference and allocated to the Gaza Strip will not be diverted to the PA and the West Bank, as some media outlets have claimed.
Author Dana ErekatPosted October 28, 2014
While it is true that only about half of the amount announced at the donors conference in Cairo is specifically for Gaza, the other half will not be diverted to the West Bank.

To understand the story behind the numbers, one must first grasp the complexities of aid management in Palestine. There are over 70 countries and agencies that provide support to Palestine on an annual basis. While some countries project their support in financial years, others do so in their own fiscal years. While some donors project up to four-year commitments, others project only one. However, in the interest of simplifying matters, donation commitments to Palestine can be divided into three categories:​

1. 1. Budgetary support: These funds support recurrent budgetary expenditures such as salaries, health care and electrical bills. They include budgetary support to Gaza, which currently amounts to almost 50% of the budget.
   2. Developmental support: These funds go to investment and technical assistance projects in various sectors, in both the West Bank and Gaza.
   3. Humanitarian support: These funds go through various UN and non-governmental agencies, most prominently the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which provides services to Palestinian refugees worldwide.

The time between the commitment of funds and their disbursement may range anywhere from a few months to years. Distinguishing between commitments and disbursements and understanding how disbursements happen are critical to understanding the flow of funds in Palestine. The disbursements of the different commitments can come through a number of channels, including but not limited to the following:​

1. 1. The Palestinian Ministry of Finance: The ministry has a number of mechanisms under its Central Treasury Account that channel both budgetary and developmental support. While all budgetary support goes through the Ministry of Finance, only about 25% of developmental support does.
   2. Direct support to ministries: Payments are made directly to the ministries to implement projects.
   3. UN agencies: Aid is channeled directly to UN agencies to implement their projects in accordance with each agency’s specialty. In Palestine, most UN agencies coordinate with the Palestinian government to identify priorities and areas of intervention. Funds go directly to these agencies for implementation.
   4. NGOs and other implementing agencies: For the most part, there is little coordination with the government through this channel. Priorities and areas of intervention are not always aligned with national plans. Unfortunately, for the most part, the disconnect between the government and these agencies leaves little room for accountability.

Palestine does not meet the criteria.

Most Respectfully,
R

There are only a couple relevant points about the Mandate.

It did not annex and therefore could not transfer any Palestinian land. It remained Palestinian land. Palestine remained a "legal entity" after the termination of the Mandate.

You have posted page after page of stuff about the Mandate that, although is mostly accurate, is irrelevant. The bottom line is that Britain cut and ran without accomplishing anything they were charged to do.

For thirty years Britain tried to impose, at the point of a gun, a stupid plan that was universally rejected by the native population. And the Palestinians had every right to reject the plan. They knew, or should have known, that their plan was going to create problems before they took on that roll. They were told repeatedly about these problems. Facts on the ground told them the same thing. Yet they were too stupid to address any of these problems. They just plodded on year after year in their clueless state.

Eventually the whole thing blew up in their faces. They were being shot at from both sides. So they folded their tent and kicked the can down the road to the UN.

Britain's only accomplishment was to start a war that continues today. The sad part is that they still support the war over peace.

Only as an area on the map with no validity as a nation, unless you can find a link declaring Palestine a nation prior to 1988

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is your perspective.

There are only a couple relevant points about the Mandate.

It did not annex and therefore could not transfer any Palestinian land. It remained Palestinian land. Palestine remained a "legal entity" after the termination of the Mandate.

(COMMENT)

The entire Mandate is relevant; but, I've only selected a couple points. There is no law, rule or covenant that dictates that territories (surrendered by one sovereign to another) must be handled a certain way. There is no obligation to annex.

Of course it did not "annex" any territory. Permanent sovereign control was not an objective.

Transfer was never and issue. Nothing was transferred, not in any of the Mandates. That was never an objective. The various sovereignties were either established by treaty (as in Jordan as an example) or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example). But NOT by transfer.

You have posted page after page of stuff about the Mandate that, although is mostly accurate, is irrelevant. The bottom line is that Britain cut and ran without accomplishing anything they were charged to do.

(COMMENT)

The Mandatory (UK) may not have been successful; principally because the possessiveness and selfishness of the Arab population.

For thirty years Britain tried to impose, at the point of a gun, a stupid plan that was universally rejected by the native population. And the Palestinians had every right to reject the plan.

(COMMENT)

Maybe! Remembering that to reject the objective to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine, as planned by the San Remo Convention and adopted by the Allied Powers, via the Mandate, is a form of self-determination (albeit a negative form on the part of the hostile Arabs). No one argues that the Arabs had such a right to argue the point. However, the Arab had no right to open a conflict with the Jewish People. The morality of such a decision is a different subject (at separate topic). The fact is, the sovereign power over the territory (the Ottoman Empire) unconditionally surrendered that territory to the Allied Powers which chose the UK as the Mandatory. The Arabs has no sovereignty before WWI and have no sovereignty after the 1918 surrender which effectively ended the Ottoman rule and placed the territory in the hands of the Allied Powers.

They knew, or should have known, that their plan was going to create problems before they took on that roll. They were told repeatedly about these problems. Facts on the ground told them the same thing. Yet they were too stupid to address any of these problems. They just plodded on year after year in their clueless state.

(COMMENT)

The occupied enemy Arab population (not including the Hashemite Bedouins of the King of the Hejaz) was in no position to dictate to the Allied Powers the outcomes of the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. The occupied enemy Arab population, having offered nothing in support of the Allied Powers, takes no part in the port-War disposition of the territories. The occupied enemy Arab population in the territories, demanding something for nothing, was unacceptable and thus became, as they were during the war, a dangerous and belligerent hostile population.

Eventually the whole thing blew up in their faces. They were being shot at from both sides. So they folded their tent and kicked the can down the road to the UN.

Britain's only accomplishment was to start a war that continues today. The sad part is that they still support the war over peace.

(COMMENT)

This is, of course, your opinion. Some would see it as the Mandatory, as a procedural issue in the Mandate, not prepared to continue indefinitely to govern Palestine, referring the Mandate to the Mandate Commission in light of the fact that for nearly half a century the Arabs and Jews cannot agree upon the means of sharing its government between them. In February 1947, the Mandatory referred the situation to the UN to for evaluation, and to recommend a settlement solution to the problem. (It did not cut and run as you suggest.) The outcome was the Partition Plan. The General Assembly adopted a Plan in 1947 which culminated in the Civil War between the Palestinian Arab Irregular Force (PAIF) and Jewish Community Forces/Israel Defense Forces (IDF):

• PAIF: in the 1947-48 led by Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni [killed in operations (April '48) before Israeli Independence] and Hasan Salama. Salama a former member of the Waffen SS and leader in WWII Operations jointly operated by Sicherheitsdienst (SS/SD) and Grand Mufti al-Husseini. It should be noted here that a VERY IMPORTANT aspect of the conflict was encapsulated in the fact that was already known to the Security Forces of the Mandatory and the Jewish Haganah. In addition to his WWII duties for the SS [establishing and supporting the communication and intelligence facilities for the Abwehr (German military intelligence), recruiting and arming anti-British Palestinians] Hasan Salama was tasked with general harassment of the British Mandatory.
• SIDE NOTES:
  • In June 1948 in the early stages of the War for Independence, Hasan Salama was killed after a disastrous engagement with the Haganah in the Battle for Ras el-Ein.
  • Hasan Salama was the father to Ali Hasan Salama, principle planner for the 1972 Olympic Massacre by Black September.

REMEMBER, as I have said before, these Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) were not just hostile to the Jewish Immigrant, but were activity hostile in the service of the Axis Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is your perspective.

There are only a couple relevant points about the Mandate.

It did not annex and therefore could not transfer any Palestinian land. It remained Palestinian land. Palestine remained a "legal entity" after the termination of the Mandate.

(COMMENT)

The entire Mandate is relevant; but, I've only selected a couple points. There is no law, rule or covenant that dictates that territories (surrendered by one sovereign to another) must be handled a certain way. There is no obligation to annex.

Of course it did not "annex" any territory. Permanent sovereign control was not an objective.

Transfer was never and issue. Nothing was transferred, not in any of the Mandates. That was never an objective. The various sovereignties were either established by treaty (as in Jordan as an example) or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example). But NOT by transfer.

You have posted page after page of stuff about the Mandate that, although is mostly accurate, is irrelevant. The bottom line is that Britain cut and ran without accomplishing anything they were charged to do.

(COMMENT)

The Mandatory (UK) may not have been successful; principally because the possessiveness and selfishness of the Arab population.

For thirty years Britain tried to impose, at the point of a gun, a stupid plan that was universally rejected by the native population. And the Palestinians had every right to reject the plan.

(COMMENT)

Maybe! Remembering that to reject the objective to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine, as planned by the San Remo Convention and adopted by the Allied Powers, via the Mandate, is a form of self-determination (albeit a negative form on the part of the hostile Arabs). No one argues that the Arabs had such a right to argue the point. However, the Arab had no right to open a conflict with the Jewish People. The morality of such a decision is a different subject (at separate topic). The fact is, the sovereign power over the territory (the Ottoman Empire) unconditionally surrendered that territory to the Allied Powers which chose the UK as the Mandatory. The Arabs has no sovereignty before WWI and have no sovereignty after the 1918 surrender which effectively ended the Ottoman rule and placed the territory in the hands of the Allied Powers.

They knew, or should have known, that their plan was going to create problems before they took on that roll. They were told repeatedly about these problems. Facts on the ground told them the same thing. Yet they were too stupid to address any of these problems. They just plodded on year after year in their clueless state.

(COMMENT)

The occupied enemy Arab population (not including the Hashemite Bedouins of the King of the Hejaz) was in no position to dictate to the Allied Powers the outcomes of the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. The occupied enemy Arab population, having offered nothing in support of the Allied Powers, takes no part in the port-War disposition of the territories. The occupied enemy Arab population in the territories, demanding something for nothing, was unacceptable and thus became, as they were during the war, a dangerous and belligerent hostile population.

Eventually the whole thing blew up in their faces. They were being shot at from both sides. So they folded their tent and kicked the can down the road to the UN.

Britain's only accomplishment was to start a war that continues today. The sad part is that they still support the war over peace.

(COMMENT)

This is, of course, your opinion. Some would see it as the Mandatory, as a procedural issue in the Mandate, not prepared to continue indefinitely to govern Palestine, referring the Mandate to the Mandate Commission in light of the fact that for nearly half a century the Arabs and Jews cannot agree upon the means of sharing its government between them. In February 1947, the Mandatory referred the situation to the UN to for evaluation, and to recommend a settlement solution to the problem. (It did not cut and run as you suggest.) The outcome was the Partition Plan. The General Assembly adopted a Plan in 1947 which culminated in the Civil War between the Palestinian Arab Irregular Force (PAIF) and Jewish Community Forces/Israel Defense Forces (IDF):

• PAIF: in the 1947-48 led by Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni [killed in operations (April '48) before Israeli Independence] and Hasan Salama. Salama a former member of the Waffen SS and leader in WWII Operations jointly operated by Sicherheitsdienst (SS/SD) and Grand Mufti al-Husseini. It should be noted here that a VERY IMPORTANT aspect of the conflict was encapsulated in the fact that was already known to the Security Forces of the Mandatory and the Jewish Haganah. In addition to his WWII duties for the SS [establishing and supporting the communication and intelligence facilities for the Abwehr (German military intelligence), recruiting and arming anti-British Palestinians] Hasan Salama was tasked with general harassment of the British Mandatory.
• SIDE NOTES:
  • In June 1948 in the early stages of the War for Independence, Hasan Salama was killed after a disastrous engagement with the Haganah in the Battle for Ras el-Ein.
  • Hasan Salama was the father to Ali Hasan Salama, principle planner for the 1972 Olympic Massacre by Black September.

REMEMBER, as I have said before, these Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) were not just hostile to the Jewish Immigrant, but were activity hostile in the service of the Axis Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

Transfer was never and issue. Nothing was transferred, not in any of the Mandates. That was never an objective. The various sovereignties were either established by treaty (as in Jordan as an example) or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example). But NOT by transfer.​

You equate Israel with the other countries under mandate. There is nothing equal at all.

The Mandates: assisted the Lebanese in forming an independent Lebanon, assisted the Syrians in forming an independent Syria, assisted the Jordanians in forming an independent Jordan. This was the procedure specified in the LoN Covenant. No transfer of land was necessary because they all gained independence in their own place.

Lebanon is in Lebanon
Syria is in Syria
Jordan is in Jordan
Israel is in Palestine

You don't need a PhD to see the difference.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is your perspective.

There are only a couple relevant points about the Mandate.

It did not annex and therefore could not transfer any Palestinian land. It remained Palestinian land. Palestine remained a "legal entity" after the termination of the Mandate.

(COMMENT)

The entire Mandate is relevant; but, I've only selected a couple points. There is no law, rule or covenant that dictates that territories (surrendered by one sovereign to another) must be handled a certain way. There is no obligation to annex.

Of course it did not "annex" any territory. Permanent sovereign control was not an objective.

Transfer was never and issue. Nothing was transferred, not in any of the Mandates. That was never an objective. The various sovereignties were either established by treaty (as in Jordan as an example) or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example). But NOT by transfer.

You have posted page after page of stuff about the Mandate that, although is mostly accurate, is irrelevant. The bottom line is that Britain cut and ran without accomplishing anything they were charged to do.

(COMMENT)

The Mandatory (UK) may not have been successful; principally because the possessiveness and selfishness of the Arab population.

For thirty years Britain tried to impose, at the point of a gun, a stupid plan that was universally rejected by the native population. And the Palestinians had every right to reject the plan.

(COMMENT)

Maybe! Remembering that to reject the objective to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine, as planned by the San Remo Convention and adopted by the Allied Powers, via the Mandate, is a form of self-determination (albeit a negative form on the part of the hostile Arabs). No one argues that the Arabs had such a right to argue the point. However, the Arab had no right to open a conflict with the Jewish People. The morality of such a decision is a different subject (at separate topic). The fact is, the sovereign power over the territory (the Ottoman Empire) unconditionally surrendered that territory to the Allied Powers which chose the UK as the Mandatory. The Arabs has no sovereignty before WWI and have no sovereignty after the 1918 surrender which effectively ended the Ottoman rule and placed the territory in the hands of the Allied Powers.

They knew, or should have known, that their plan was going to create problems before they took on that roll. They were told repeatedly about these problems. Facts on the ground told them the same thing. Yet they were too stupid to address any of these problems. They just plodded on year after year in their clueless state.

(COMMENT)

The occupied enemy Arab population (not including the Hashemite Bedouins of the King of the Hejaz) was in no position to dictate to the Allied Powers the outcomes of the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. The occupied enemy Arab population, having offered nothing in support of the Allied Powers, takes no part in the port-War disposition of the territories. The occupied enemy Arab population in the territories, demanding something for nothing, was unacceptable and thus became, as they were during the war, a dangerous and belligerent hostile population.

Eventually the whole thing blew up in their faces. They were being shot at from both sides. So they folded their tent and kicked the can down the road to the UN.

Britain's only accomplishment was to start a war that continues today. The sad part is that they still support the war over peace.

(COMMENT)

This is, of course, your opinion. Some would see it as the Mandatory, as a procedural issue in the Mandate, not prepared to continue indefinitely to govern Palestine, referring the Mandate to the Mandate Commission in light of the fact that for nearly half a century the Arabs and Jews cannot agree upon the means of sharing its government between them. In February 1947, the Mandatory referred the situation to the UN to for evaluation, and to recommend a settlement solution to the problem. (It did not cut and run as you suggest.) The outcome was the Partition Plan. The General Assembly adopted a Plan in 1947 which culminated in the Civil War between the Palestinian Arab Irregular Force (PAIF) and Jewish Community Forces/Israel Defense Forces (IDF):

• PAIF: in the 1947-48 led by Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni [killed in operations (April '48) before Israeli Independence] and Hasan Salama. Salama a former member of the Waffen SS and leader in WWII Operations jointly operated by Sicherheitsdienst (SS/SD) and Grand Mufti al-Husseini. It should be noted here that a VERY IMPORTANT aspect of the conflict was encapsulated in the fact that was already known to the Security Forces of the Mandatory and the Jewish Haganah. In addition to his WWII duties for the SS [establishing and supporting the communication and intelligence facilities for the Abwehr (German military intelligence), recruiting and arming anti-British Palestinians] Hasan Salama was tasked with general harassment of the British Mandatory.
• SIDE NOTES:
  • In June 1948 in the early stages of the War for Independence, Hasan Salama was killed after a disastrous engagement with the Haganah in the Battle for Ras el-Ein.
  • Hasan Salama was the father to Ali Hasan Salama, principle planner for the 1972 Olympic Massacre by Black September.

REMEMBER, as I have said before, these Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) were not just hostile to the Jewish Immigrant, but were activity hostile in the service of the Axis Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

Transfer was never and issue. Nothing was transferred, not in any of the Mandates. That was never an objective. The various sovereignties were either established by treaty (as in Jordan as an example) or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example). But NOT by transfer.​

You equate Israel with the other countries under mandate. There is nothing equal at all.

The Mandates: assisted the Lebanese in forming an independent Lebanon, assisted the Syrians in forming an independent Syria, assisted the Jordanians in forming an independent Jordan. This was the procedure specified in the LoN Covenant. No transfer of land was necessary because they all gained independence in their own place.

Lebanon is in Lebanon
Syria is in Syria
Jordan is in Jordan
Israel is in Palestine

You don't need a PhD to see the difference.

Israel is not in Palestine. That's absurd. Palestine is the West Bank and Gaza. IF anything, PAlestine is in Israel. Looks at a map, it's not so hard.

Also, Palestine gained independence in 1988. Before that, Arabs did NOT HAVE SOVEREIGNTY over the land.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is your perspective.

There are only a couple relevant points about the Mandate.

It did not annex and therefore could not transfer any Palestinian land. It remained Palestinian land. Palestine remained a "legal entity" after the termination of the Mandate.

(COMMENT)

The entire Mandate is relevant; but, I've only selected a couple points. There is no law, rule or covenant that dictates that territories (surrendered by one sovereign to another) must be handled a certain way. There is no obligation to annex.

Of course it did not "annex" any territory. Permanent sovereign control was not an objective.

Transfer was never and issue. Nothing was transferred, not in any of the Mandates. That was never an objective. The various sovereignties were either established by treaty (as in Jordan as an example) or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example). But NOT by transfer.

You have posted page after page of stuff about the Mandate that, although is mostly accurate, is irrelevant. The bottom line is that Britain cut and ran without accomplishing anything they were charged to do.

(COMMENT)

The Mandatory (UK) may not have been successful; principally because the possessiveness and selfishness of the Arab population.

For thirty years Britain tried to impose, at the point of a gun, a stupid plan that was universally rejected by the native population. And the Palestinians had every right to reject the plan.

(COMMENT)

Maybe! Remembering that to reject the objective to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine, as planned by the San Remo Convention and adopted by the Allied Powers, via the Mandate, is a form of self-determination (albeit a negative form on the part of the hostile Arabs). No one argues that the Arabs had such a right to argue the point. However, the Arab had no right to open a conflict with the Jewish People. The morality of such a decision is a different subject (at separate topic). The fact is, the sovereign power over the territory (the Ottoman Empire) unconditionally surrendered that territory to the Allied Powers which chose the UK as the Mandatory. The Arabs has no sovereignty before WWI and have no sovereignty after the 1918 surrender which effectively ended the Ottoman rule and placed the territory in the hands of the Allied Powers.

They knew, or should have known, that their plan was going to create problems before they took on that roll. They were told repeatedly about these problems. Facts on the ground told them the same thing. Yet they were too stupid to address any of these problems. They just plodded on year after year in their clueless state.

(COMMENT)

The occupied enemy Arab population (not including the Hashemite Bedouins of the King of the Hejaz) was in no position to dictate to the Allied Powers the outcomes of the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. The occupied enemy Arab population, having offered nothing in support of the Allied Powers, takes no part in the port-War disposition of the territories. The occupied enemy Arab population in the territories, demanding something for nothing, was unacceptable and thus became, as they were during the war, a dangerous and belligerent hostile population.

Eventually the whole thing blew up in their faces. They were being shot at from both sides. So they folded their tent and kicked the can down the road to the UN.

Britain's only accomplishment was to start a war that continues today. The sad part is that they still support the war over peace.

(COMMENT)

This is, of course, your opinion. Some would see it as the Mandatory, as a procedural issue in the Mandate, not prepared to continue indefinitely to govern Palestine, referring the Mandate to the Mandate Commission in light of the fact that for nearly half a century the Arabs and Jews cannot agree upon the means of sharing its government between them. In February 1947, the Mandatory referred the situation to the UN to for evaluation, and to recommend a settlement solution to the problem. (It did not cut and run as you suggest.) The outcome was the Partition Plan. The General Assembly adopted a Plan in 1947 which culminated in the Civil War between the Palestinian Arab Irregular Force (PAIF) and Jewish Community Forces/Israel Defense Forces (IDF):

• PAIF: in the 1947-48 led by Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni [killed in operations (April '48) before Israeli Independence] and Hasan Salama. Salama a former member of the Waffen SS and leader in WWII Operations jointly operated by Sicherheitsdienst (SS/SD) and Grand Mufti al-Husseini. It should be noted here that a VERY IMPORTANT aspect of the conflict was encapsulated in the fact that was already known to the Security Forces of the Mandatory and the Jewish Haganah. In addition to his WWII duties for the SS [establishing and supporting the communication and intelligence facilities for the Abwehr (German military intelligence), recruiting and arming anti-British Palestinians] Hasan Salama was tasked with general harassment of the British Mandatory.
• SIDE NOTES:
  • In June 1948 in the early stages of the War for Independence, Hasan Salama was killed after a disastrous engagement with the Haganah in the Battle for Ras el-Ein.
  • Hasan Salama was the father to Ali Hasan Salama, principle planner for the 1972 Olympic Massacre by Black September.

REMEMBER, as I have said before, these Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) were not just hostile to the Jewish Immigrant, but were activity hostile in the service of the Axis Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

Transfer was never and issue. Nothing was transferred, not in any of the Mandates. That was never an objective. The various sovereignties were either established by treaty (as in Jordan as an example) or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example). But NOT by transfer.​

You equate Israel with the other countries under mandate. There is nothing equal at all.

The Mandates: assisted the Lebanese in forming an independent Lebanon, assisted the Syrians in forming an independent Syria, assisted the Jordanians in forming an independent Jordan. This was the procedure specified in the LoN Covenant. No transfer of land was necessary because they all gained independence in their own place.

Lebanon is in Lebanon
Syria is in Syria
Jordan is in Jordan
Israel is in Palestine

You don't need a PhD to see the difference.

You don't even have the P as Jordan is in Palestine as well. Read the original LoN Mandate document

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Whatever is takes to understand it, you may have missed it!

Transfer was never and issue. Nothing was transferred, not in any of the Mandates. That was never an objective. The various sovereignties were either established by treaty (as in Jordan as an example) or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example). But NOT by transfer.

You equate Israel with the other countries under mandate. There is nothing equal at all.

The Mandates: assisted the Lebanese in forming an independent Lebanon, assisted the Syrians in forming an independent Syria, assisted the Jordanians in forming an independent Jordan. This was the procedure specified in the LoN Covenant. No transfer of land was necessary because they all gained independence in their own place.

Lebanon is in Lebanon
Syria is in Syria
Jordan is in Jordan
Israel is in Palestine

You don't need a PhD to see the difference.

(COMMENT)

Just as an example, your first - two counter-point (Lebanon is in Lebanon --- Syria is in Syria) is truly over simplified. When the Ottoman Empire surrendered, there were 5 provinces of Syria mandated to France that later became Lebanon. But the entirety of the Mandate was, by San Remo Convention [later the Article 3(1) of the Treaty of Lausanne], was delineated as Syria; including the administrative Ottoman districts alone the Mediterranean coast; as divided by the Sykes-Picot Agreement. This actually conformed with the direct control exercised over the coastal parts of the Ottoman Vilayet of Aleppo and Vilayet of Beirut. During WII, under the Vichy Government, General Henri Gouraud, French Army of the Levant (High Commissioner for the French Mandate) established Greater Lebanon, the predecessor of the contemporarily Lebanon we know it today; selecting Beirut as the capital.

The French Mandate for Syria and Lebanon was a League of Nations Mandate created at the end of World War I. When the Ottoman Empire was formally split up by the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920, it was decided that four of its territories in the Middle East should be League of Nations mandates temporarily governed by the United Kingdom and France on behalf of the League.

As previously surveyed by the French, the eastern side of the al-Bekka Valley became the border that formed a logical defensible boundary. Like the Mandate for Palestine was partitioned by the British, so was the Mandate for Syria.

This is not so dissimilar to the Partition of the the Mandate for Palestine and Trans-Jordan.

Even this is a simplified version of events. But I could write forever on this subject and the inability of the Arabs to look at the broader - big picture and put it all together. I guess, in a way, that is why there are so many books written about it.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Whatever is takes to understand it, you may have missed it!

Transfer was never and issue. Nothing was transferred, not in any of the Mandates. That was never an objective. The various sovereignties were either established by treaty (as in Jordan as an example) or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example). But NOT by transfer.

You equate Israel with the other countries under mandate. There is nothing equal at all.

The Mandates: assisted the Lebanese in forming an independent Lebanon, assisted the Syrians in forming an independent Syria, assisted the Jordanians in forming an independent Jordan. This was the procedure specified in the LoN Covenant. No transfer of land was necessary because they all gained independence in their own place.

Lebanon is in Lebanon
Syria is in Syria
Jordan is in Jordan
Israel is in Palestine

You don't need a PhD to see the difference.

(COMMENT)

Just as an example, your first - two counter-point (Lebanon is in Lebanon --- Syria is in Syria) is truly over simplified. When the Ottoman Empire surrendered, there were 5 provinces of Syria mandated to France that later became Lebanon. But the entirety of the Mandate was, by San Remo Convention [later the Article 3(1) of the Treaty of Lausanne], was delineated as Syria; including the administrative Ottoman districts alone the Mediterranean coast; as divided by the Sykes-Picot Agreement. This actually conformed with the direct control exercised over the coastal parts of the Ottoman Vilayet of Aleppo and Vilayet of Beirut. During WII, under the Vichy Government, General Henri Gouraud, French Army of the Levant (High Commissioner for the French Mandate) established Greater Lebanon, the predecessor of the contemporarily Lebanon we know it today; selecting Beirut as the capital.

The French Mandate for Syria and Lebanon was a League of Nations Mandate created at the end of World War I. When the Ottoman Empire was formally split up by the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920, it was decided that four of its territories in the Middle East should be League of Nations mandates temporarily governed by the United Kingdom and France on behalf of the League.

As previously surveyed by the French, the eastern side of the al-Bekka Valley became the border that formed a logical defensible boundary. Like the Mandate for Palestine was partitioned by the British, so was the Mandate for Syria.

This is not so dissimilar to the Partition of the the Mandate for Palestine and Trans-Jordan.

Even this is a simplified version of events. But I could write forever on this subject and the inability of the Arabs to look at the broader - big picture and put it all together. I guess, in a way, that is why there are so many books written about it.

Most Respectfully,
R

Whatever is takes to understand it, you may have missed it!​

It is you who is missing the point and I think it because you want to miss the point.

Several authorities, basing their views on the wording of Article 22 of the Covenant, and stressing that the League was founded on the principle of non-annexation of territories and that the mandates prohibited the alienation of territory (article 5 of the Palestine Mandate), have ruled that sovereignty rested with the people of a Mandated Territory, albeit in suspense since they could not exercise it. One representative view may be quoted:

"The drafters of the Treaty of Versailles, bearing in mind above all the right of peoples to self-determination, formally declared that Mandated Territories were not to be annexed by any Power, be it the community of States known as the League of Nations that was based at Geneva or any individual State. To all intents and purposes, these Territories belong to the indigenous inhabitants and communities, which the League has set out to defend and on whose behalf it acts as a kind of family council". 110/

Palestine was the national home of the Palestinians from time immemorial. The establishment of a national home for an alien people in that country was a violation of the legitimate and fundamental rights of the inhabitants. The League of Nations did not possess the power, any more than the British Government did, to dispose of Palestine, or to grant to the Jews any political or territorial rights in that country. - See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978 ​

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I do not think you read my comments well. While I do not disagree with your commentary, I do agree that annexation was never adopted as a solution by the League of Nations or the United Nations. However, you would be hard pressed to find an explicit prohibition. In any event, annexation was never used as a means.

Transfer was never and issue. Nothing was transferred, not in any of the Mandates. That was never an objective. The various sovereignties were either established by treaty (as in Jordan as an example) or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example). But NOT by transfer.

Neither "Treaties" nor the "right of self-determination" was prohibited by law, Covenant, Charter or the Mandate; not then and not now.

It is you who is missing the point and I think it because you want to miss the point.

Several authorities, basing their views on the wording of Article 22 of the Covenant, and stressing that the League was founded on the principle of non-annexation of territories and that the mandates prohibited the alienation of territory (article 5 of the Palestine Mandate), have ruled that sovereignty rested with the people of a Mandated Territory, albeit in suspense since they could not exercise it. One representative view may be quoted:

"The drafters of the Treaty of Versailles, bearing in mind above all the right of peoples to self-determination, formally declared that Mandated Territories were not to be annexed by any Power, be it the community of States known as the League of Nations that was based at Geneva or any individual State. To all intents and purposes, these Territories belong to the indigenous inhabitants and communities, which the League has set out to defend and on whose behalf it acts as a kind of family council". 110/

Palestine was the national home of the Palestinians from time immemorial. The establishment of a national home for an alien people in that country was a violation of the legitimate and fundamental rights of the inhabitants. The League of Nations did not possess the power, any more than the British Government did, to dispose of Palestine, or to grant to the Jews any political or territorial rights in that country. - See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978 ​

(COMMENT)

In most cases, "alienation" of the territory is limited to the authority of the Council or the UN Trusteeship. In the case of the Mandate to Palestine the limitation is specific and prohibits in the terminology "ceded or leased" (no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased). The "alienation" (immigration in this case) was authorized by the (in that time, under existing authority) in the form of Article 6 of the Mandate.

The British, as Mandatory, did not cede or lease any territory. The Council and/or the UN, which have the controlling authority of the Mandates issued made the determination as to the disposition of the territories in question under:

Part I, Section I, Territorial Clauses
ARTICLE I6.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries. SOURCE: Treaty of Lausanne

Part I, Section 2, Special Provisions
ARTICLE 27.

No power or jurisdiction in political, legislative or administrative matters shall be exercised outside Turkish territory by the Turkish Government or authorities, for any reason whatsoever, over the nationals of a territory placed under the sovereignty or protectorate of the other Powers signatory of the present Treaty, or over the nationals of a territory detached from Turkey.

It is understood that the spiritual attributions of the Moslem religious authorities are in no way infringed.

ARTICLE 28.

Each of the High Contracting Parties hereby accepts, in so far as it is concerned, the complete abolition of the Capitulations in Turkey in every respect.
SOURCE: Treaty of Lausanne

(ADDITIONAL COMMENT)

In addition tho the Arab Palestinian recognition of the Partition Plan --- General Assembly 181(II), in 2005 the DPR Issued a side note of some importantance:

International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People

Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 32/40 B of 2 December 1977, the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People is observed annually. The Day commemorates the adoption by the General Assembly on 29 November 1947 of resolution 181 (II), which provides for the partition of Palestine into two States. The observance is held at United Nations Headquarters, the United Nations Offices at Geneva and Vienna, and elsewhere. The event includes solemn meetings at which statements on the question of Palestine are made by high-level officials of the United Nations and intergovernmental organizations and representatives of the international network of NGOs. It also usually includes, at Headquarters, the display of a Palestinian exhibit, film screenings and other activities. At other locations, various activities are organized by governmental bodies and NGOs in cooperation with United Nations Information Centres around the world.
- See more at: CEIRPP DPR - Information note 2005 12 December 2005

However you may interpret the excerpts cited in The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978, there is a recognition site, in the 21st Century concerning the validity of the Partition Plan.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[theliq]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is your perspective.

There are only a couple relevant points about the Mandate.

It did not annex and therefore could not transfer any Palestinian land. It remained Palestinian land. Palestine remained a "legal entity" after the termination of the Mandate.

(COMMENT)

The entire Mandate is relevant; but, I've only selected a couple points. There is no law, rule or covenant that dictates that territories (surrendered by one sovereign to another) must be handled a certain way. There is no obligation to annex.

Of course it did not "annex" any territory. Permanent sovereign control was not an objective.

Transfer was never and issue. Nothing was transferred, not in any of the Mandates. That was never an objective. The various sovereignties were either established by treaty (as in Jordan as an example) or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example). But NOT by transfer.

You have posted page after page of stuff about the Mandate that, although is mostly accurate, is irrelevant. The bottom line is that Britain cut and ran without accomplishing anything they were charged to do.

(COMMENT)

The Mandatory (UK) may not have been successful; principally because the possessiveness and selfishness of the Arab population.

For thirty years Britain tried to impose, at the point of a gun, a stupid plan that was universally rejected by the native population. And the Palestinians had every right to reject the plan.

(COMMENT)

Maybe! Remembering that to reject the objective to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine, as planned by the San Remo Convention and adopted by the Allied Powers, via the Mandate, is a form of self-determination (albeit a negative form on the part of the hostile Arabs). No one argues that the Arabs had such a right to argue the point. However, the Arab had no right to open a conflict with the Jewish People. The morality of such a decision is a different subject (at separate topic). The fact is, the sovereign power over the territory (the Ottoman Empire) unconditionally surrendered that territory to the Allied Powers which chose the UK as the Mandatory. The Arabs has no sovereignty before WWI and have no sovereignty after the 1918 surrender which effectively ended the Ottoman rule and placed the territory in the hands of the Allied Powers.

They knew, or should have known, that their plan was going to create problems before they took on that roll. They were told repeatedly about these problems. Facts on the ground told them the same thing. Yet they were too stupid to address any of these problems. They just plodded on year after year in their clueless state.

(COMMENT)

The occupied enemy Arab population (not including the Hashemite Bedouins of the King of the Hejaz) was in no position to dictate to the Allied Powers the outcomes of the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. The occupied enemy Arab population, having offered nothing in support of the Allied Powers, takes no part in the port-War disposition of the territories. The occupied enemy Arab population in the territories, demanding something for nothing, was unacceptable and thus became, as they were during the war, a dangerous and belligerent hostile population.

Eventually the whole thing blew up in their faces. They were being shot at from both sides. So they folded their tent and kicked the can down the road to the UN.

Britain's only accomplishment was to start a war that continues today. The sad part is that they still support the war over peace.

(COMMENT)

This is, of course, your opinion. Some would see it as the Mandatory, as a procedural issue in the Mandate, not prepared to continue indefinitely to govern Palestine, referring the Mandate to the Mandate Commission in light of the fact that for nearly half a century the Arabs and Jews cannot agree upon the means of sharing its government between them. In February 1947, the Mandatory referred the situation to the UN to for evaluation, and to recommend a settlement solution to the problem. (It did not cut and run as you suggest.) The outcome was the Partition Plan. The General Assembly adopted a Plan in 1947 which culminated in the Civil War between the Palestinian Arab Irregular Force (PAIF) and Jewish Community Forces/Israel Defense Forces (IDF):

• PAIF: in the 1947-48 led by Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni [killed in operations (April '48) before Israeli Independence] and Hasan Salama. Salama a former member of the Waffen SS and leader in WWII Operations jointly operated by Sicherheitsdienst (SS/SD) and Grand Mufti al-Husseini. It should be noted here that a VERY IMPORTANT aspect of the conflict was encapsulated in the fact that was already known to the Security Forces of the Mandatory and the Jewish Haganah. In addition to his WWII duties for the SS [establishing and supporting the communication and intelligence facilities for the Abwehr (German military intelligence), recruiting and arming anti-British Palestinians] Hasan Salama was tasked with general harassment of the British Mandatory.
• SIDE NOTES:
  • In June 1948 in the early stages of the War for Independence, Hasan Salama was killed after a disastrous engagement with the Haganah in the Battle for Ras el-Ein.
  • Hasan Salama was the father to Ali Hasan Salama, principle planner for the 1972 Olympic Massacre by Black September.

REMEMBER, as I have said before, these Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) were not just hostile to the Jewish Immigrant, but were activity hostile in the service of the Axis Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

Transfer was never and issue. Nothing was transferred, not in any of the Mandates. That was never an objective. The various sovereignties were either established by treaty (as in Jordan as an example) or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example). But NOT by transfer.​

You equate Israel with the other countries under mandate. There is nothing equal at all.

The Mandates: assisted the Lebanese in forming an independent Lebanon, assisted the Syrians in forming an independent Syria, assisted the Jordanians in forming an independent Jordan. This was the procedure specified in the LoN Covenant. No transfer of land was necessary because they all gained independence in their own place.

Lebanon is in Lebanon
Syria is in Syria
Jordan is in Jordan
Israel is in Palestine

You don't need a PhD to see the difference.

You don't even have the P as Jordan is in Palestine as well. Read the original LoN Mandate document

What you living in Jordan P "Phoenal because the Palis never did during the time-line you mention,some of course do today after the Zionist Terrorist exported them at GUN point ......between 1947-1949......it saved the Palestinians being Slaughtered.........so today Jordan have a remarkable Palestinian Queen.............

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Whatever is takes to understand it, you may have missed it!

Transfer was never and issue. Nothing was transferred, not in any of the Mandates. That was never an objective. The various sovereignties were either established by treaty (as in Jordan as an example) or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example). But NOT by transfer.

You equate Israel with the other countries under mandate. There is nothing equal at all.

The Mandates: assisted the Lebanese in forming an independent Lebanon, assisted the Syrians in forming an independent Syria, assisted the Jordanians in forming an independent Jordan. This was the procedure specified in the LoN Covenant. No transfer of land was necessary because they all gained independence in their own place.

Lebanon is in Lebanon
Syria is in Syria
Jordan is in Jordan
Israel is in Palestine

You don't need a PhD to see the difference.

(COMMENT)

Just as an example, your first - two counter-point (Lebanon is in Lebanon --- Syria is in Syria) is truly over simplified. When the Ottoman Empire surrendered, there were 5 provinces of Syria mandated to France that later became Lebanon. But the entirety of the Mandate was, by San Remo Convention [later the Article 3(1) of the Treaty of Lausanne], was delineated as Syria; including the administrative Ottoman districts alone the Mediterranean coast; as divided by the Sykes-Picot Agreement. This actually conformed with the direct control exercised over the coastal parts of the Ottoman Vilayet of Aleppo and Vilayet of Beirut. During WII, under the Vichy Government, General Henri Gouraud, French Army of the Levant (High Commissioner for the French Mandate) established Greater Lebanon, the predecessor of the contemporarily Lebanon we know it today; selecting Beirut as the capital.

The French Mandate for Syria and Lebanon was a League of Nations Mandate created at the end of World War I. When the Ottoman Empire was formally split up by the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920, it was decided that four of its territories in the Middle East should be League of Nations mandates temporarily governed by the United Kingdom and France on behalf of the League.

As previously surveyed by the French, the eastern side of the al-Bekka Valley became the border that formed a logical defensible boundary. Like the Mandate for Palestine was partitioned by the British, so was the Mandate for Syria.

This is not so dissimilar to the Partition of the the Mandate for Palestine and Trans-Jordan.

Even this is a simplified version of events. But I could write forever on this subject and the inability of the Arabs to look at the broader - big picture and put it all together. I guess, in a way, that is why there are so many books written about it.

Most Respectfully,
R

Whatever is takes to understand it, you may have missed it!​

It is you who is missing the point and I think it because you want to miss the point.

Several authorities, basing their views on the wording of Article 22 of the Covenant, and stressing that the League was founded on the principle of non-annexation of territories and that the mandates prohibited the alienation of territory (article 5 of the Palestine Mandate), have ruled that sovereignty rested with the people of a Mandated Territory, albeit in suspense since they could not exercise it. One representative view may be quoted:

"The drafters of the Treaty of Versailles, bearing in mind above all the right of peoples to self-determination, formally declared that Mandated Territories were not to be annexed by any Power, be it the community of States known as the League of Nations that was based at Geneva or any individual State. To all intents and purposes, these Territories belong to the indigenous inhabitants and communities, which the League has set out to defend and on whose behalf it acts as a kind of family council". 110/

Palestine was the national home of the Palestinians from time immemorial. The establishment of a national home for an alien people in that country was a violation of the legitimate and fundamental rights of the inhabitants. The League of Nations did not possess the power, any more than the British Government did, to dispose of Palestine, or to grant to the Jews any political or territorial rights in that country. - See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978 ​

This BIASED link again that has no validity because it only puts the arab muslim side of the problem. The SOVEREIGN land owners under international law of 1923 granted the land to the Jews for their National Home. This you have a problem with as you do not want any International Laws to be in the Jews favour, so you post islamonazi propaganda that has no validity

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is your perspective.

There are only a couple relevant points about the Mandate.

It did not annex and therefore could not transfer any Palestinian land. It remained Palestinian land. Palestine remained a "legal entity" after the termination of the Mandate.

(COMMENT)

The entire Mandate is relevant; but, I've only selected a couple points. There is no law, rule or covenant that dictates that territories (surrendered by one sovereign to another) must be handled a certain way. There is no obligation to annex.

Of course it did not "annex" any territory. Permanent sovereign control was not an objective.

Transfer was never and issue. Nothing was transferred, not in any of the Mandates. That was never an objective. The various sovereignties were either established by treaty (as in Jordan as an example) or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example). But NOT by transfer.

You have posted page after page of stuff about the Mandate that, although is mostly accurate, is irrelevant. The bottom line is that Britain cut and ran without accomplishing anything they were charged to do.

(COMMENT)

The Mandatory (UK) may not have been successful; principally because the possessiveness and selfishness of the Arab population.

For thirty years Britain tried to impose, at the point of a gun, a stupid plan that was universally rejected by the native population. And the Palestinians had every right to reject the plan.

(COMMENT)

Maybe! Remembering that to reject the objective to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine, as planned by the San Remo Convention and adopted by the Allied Powers, via the Mandate, is a form of self-determination (albeit a negative form on the part of the hostile Arabs). No one argues that the Arabs had such a right to argue the point. However, the Arab had no right to open a conflict with the Jewish People. The morality of such a decision is a different subject (at separate topic). The fact is, the sovereign power over the territory (the Ottoman Empire) unconditionally surrendered that territory to the Allied Powers which chose the UK as the Mandatory. The Arabs has no sovereignty before WWI and have no sovereignty after the 1918 surrender which effectively ended the Ottoman rule and placed the territory in the hands of the Allied Powers.

They knew, or should have known, that their plan was going to create problems before they took on that roll. They were told repeatedly about these problems. Facts on the ground told them the same thing. Yet they were too stupid to address any of these problems. They just plodded on year after year in their clueless state.

(COMMENT)

The occupied enemy Arab population (not including the Hashemite Bedouins of the King of the Hejaz) was in no position to dictate to the Allied Powers the outcomes of the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. The occupied enemy Arab population, having offered nothing in support of the Allied Powers, takes no part in the port-War disposition of the territories. The occupied enemy Arab population in the territories, demanding something for nothing, was unacceptable and thus became, as they were during the war, a dangerous and belligerent hostile population.

Eventually the whole thing blew up in their faces. They were being shot at from both sides. So they folded their tent and kicked the can down the road to the UN.

Britain's only accomplishment was to start a war that continues today. The sad part is that they still support the war over peace.

(COMMENT)

This is, of course, your opinion. Some would see it as the Mandatory, as a procedural issue in the Mandate, not prepared to continue indefinitely to govern Palestine, referring the Mandate to the Mandate Commission in light of the fact that for nearly half a century the Arabs and Jews cannot agree upon the means of sharing its government between them. In February 1947, the Mandatory referred the situation to the UN to for evaluation, and to recommend a settlement solution to the problem. (It did not cut and run as you suggest.) The outcome was the Partition Plan. The General Assembly adopted a Plan in 1947 which culminated in the Civil War between the Palestinian Arab Irregular Force (PAIF) and Jewish Community Forces/Israel Defense Forces (IDF):

• PAIF: in the 1947-48 led by Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni [killed in operations (April '48) before Israeli Independence] and Hasan Salama. Salama a former member of the Waffen SS and leader in WWII Operations jointly operated by Sicherheitsdienst (SS/SD) and Grand Mufti al-Husseini. It should be noted here that a VERY IMPORTANT aspect of the conflict was encapsulated in the fact that was already known to the Security Forces of the Mandatory and the Jewish Haganah. In addition to his WWII duties for the SS [establishing and supporting the communication and intelligence facilities for the Abwehr (German military intelligence), recruiting and arming anti-British Palestinians] Hasan Salama was tasked with general harassment of the British Mandatory.
• SIDE NOTES:
  • In June 1948 in the early stages of the War for Independence, Hasan Salama was killed after a disastrous engagement with the Haganah in the Battle for Ras el-Ein.
  • Hasan Salama was the father to Ali Hasan Salama, principle planner for the 1972 Olympic Massacre by Black September.

REMEMBER, as I have said before, these Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) were not just hostile to the Jewish Immigrant, but were activity hostile in the service of the Axis Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

Transfer was never and issue. Nothing was transferred, not in any of the Mandates. That was never an objective. The various sovereignties were either established by treaty (as in Jordan as an example) or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example). But NOT by transfer.​

You equate Israel with the other countries under mandate. There is nothing equal at all.

The Mandates: assisted the Lebanese in forming an independent Lebanon, assisted the Syrians in forming an independent Syria, assisted the Jordanians in forming an independent Jordan. This was the procedure specified in the LoN Covenant. No transfer of land was necessary because they all gained independence in their own place.

Lebanon is in Lebanon
Syria is in Syria
Jordan is in Jordan
Israel is in Palestine

You don't need a PhD to see the difference.

You don't even have the P as Jordan is in Palestine as well. Read the original LoN Mandate document

What you living in Jordan P "Phoenal because the Palis never did during the time-line you mention,some of course do today after the Zionist Terrorist exported them at GUN point ......between 1947-1949......it saved the Palestinians being Slaughtered.........so today Jordan have a remarkable Palestinian Queen.............

You should really learn how to read. The original Mandate for Palestine included trans Jordan and was changed in 1923 to partition Palestine into arab Palestine and Jewish Palestine. The arab muslims had no legal rights to claim any of the Jewish Palestine land. Now they are claiming all of the land as arab Palestinian because they are greedy and cant stand to see any Jew better than they are. By the way if the Palestinian arabs had not started to slaughter the Jews starting in 1917 then the Jews would not need to have forcibly removed the terrorists living in Israel after the declaration of independence.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I do not think you read my comments well. While I do not disagree with your commentary, I do agree that annexation was never adopted as a solution by the League of Nations or the United Nations. However, you would be hard pressed to find an explicit prohibition. In any event, annexation was never used as a means.

Transfer was never and issue. Nothing was transferred, not in any of the Mandates. That was never an objective. The various sovereignties were either established by treaty (as in Jordan as an example) or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example). But NOT by transfer.

Neither "Treaties" nor the "right of self-determination" was prohibited by law, Covenant, Charter or the Mandate; not then and not now.

It is you who is missing the point and I think it because you want to miss the point.

Several authorities, basing their views on the wording of Article 22 of the Covenant, and stressing that the League was founded on the principle of non-annexation of territories and that the mandates prohibited the alienation of territory (article 5 of the Palestine Mandate), have ruled that sovereignty rested with the people of a Mandated Territory, albeit in suspense since they could not exercise it. One representative view may be quoted:

"The drafters of the Treaty of Versailles, bearing in mind above all the right of peoples to self-determination, formally declared that Mandated Territories were not to be annexed by any Power, be it the community of States known as the League of Nations that was based at Geneva or any individual State. To all intents and purposes, these Territories belong to the indigenous inhabitants and communities, which the League has set out to defend and on whose behalf it acts as a kind of family council". 110/

Palestine was the national home of the Palestinians from time immemorial. The establishment of a national home for an alien people in that country was a violation of the legitimate and fundamental rights of the inhabitants. The League of Nations did not possess the power, any more than the British Government did, to dispose of Palestine, or to grant to the Jews any political or territorial rights in that country. - See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978 ​

(COMMENT)

In most cases, "alienation" of the territory is limited to the authority of the Council or the UN Trusteeship. In the case of the Mandate to Palestine the limitation is specific and prohibits in the terminology "ceded or leased" (no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased). The "alienation" (immigration in this case) was authorized by the (in that time, under existing authority) in the form of Article 6 of the Mandate.

The British, as Mandatory, did not cede or lease any territory. The Council and/or the UN, which have the controlling authority of the Mandates issued made the determination as to the disposition of the territories in question under:

Part I, Section I, Territorial Clauses
ARTICLE I6.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries. SOURCE: Treaty of Lausanne

Part I, Section 2, Special Provisions
ARTICLE 27.

No power or jurisdiction in political, legislative or administrative matters shall be exercised outside Turkish territory by the Turkish Government or authorities, for any reason whatsoever, over the nationals of a territory placed under the sovereignty or protectorate of the other Powers signatory of the present Treaty, or over the nationals of a territory detached from Turkey.

It is understood that the spiritual attributions of the Moslem religious authorities are in no way infringed.

ARTICLE 28.

Each of the High Contracting Parties hereby accepts, in so far as it is concerned, the complete abolition of the Capitulations in Turkey in every respect.
SOURCE: Treaty of Lausanne

(ADDITIONAL COMMENT)

In addition tho the Arab Palestinian recognition of the Partition Plan --- General Assembly 181(II), in 2005 the DPR Issued a side note of some importantance:

International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People

Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 32/40 B of 2 December 1977, the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People is observed annually. The Day commemorates the adoption by the General Assembly on 29 November 1947 of resolution 181 (II), which provides for the partition of Palestine into two States. The observance is held at United Nations Headquarters, the United Nations Offices at Geneva and Vienna, and elsewhere. The event includes solemn meetings at which statements on the question of Palestine are made by high-level officials of the United Nations and intergovernmental organizations and representatives of the international network of NGOs. It also usually includes, at Headquarters, the display of a Palestinian exhibit, film screenings and other activities. At other locations, various activities are organized by governmental bodies and NGOs in cooperation with United Nations Information Centres around the world.
- See more at: CEIRPP DPR - Information note 2005 12 December 2005

However you may interpret the excerpts cited in The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978, there is a recognition site, in the 21st Century concerning the validity of the Partition Plan.

Most Respectfully,
R

I do not think you read my comments well. While I do not disagree with your commentary, I do agree that annexation was never adopted as a solution by the League of Nations or the United Nations. However, you would be hard pressed to find an explicit prohibition. In any event, annexation was never used as a means.

In the case of the Mandate to Palestine the limitation is specific and prohibits in the terminology "ceded or leased" (no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased).

To all intents and purposes, these Territories belong to the indigenous inhabitants and communities,...​

Once we get past all of the irrelevant fluff, we can get to the root of the matter. The fact is that neither the LoN nor the Mandate (nor the UN for that matter) had the authority to cede any Palestinian land. Another fact is that none of them did.

This fact was affirmed by the 1949 UN armistice agreements that show that Palestine's land and international borders remained unchanged from when they were legally established in 1924.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I do not think you read my comments well. While I do not disagree with your commentary, I do agree that annexation was never adopted as a solution by the League of Nations or the United Nations. However, you would be hard pressed to find an explicit prohibition. In any event, annexation was never used as a means.

Transfer was never and issue. Nothing was transferred, not in any of the Mandates. That was never an objective. The various sovereignties were either established by treaty (as in Jordan as an example) or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example). But NOT by transfer.

Neither "Treaties" nor the "right of self-determination" was prohibited by law, Covenant, Charter or the Mandate; not then and not now.

It is you who is missing the point and I think it because you want to miss the point.

Several authorities, basing their views on the wording of Article 22 of the Covenant, and stressing that the League was founded on the principle of non-annexation of territories and that the mandates prohibited the alienation of territory (article 5 of the Palestine Mandate), have ruled that sovereignty rested with the people of a Mandated Territory, albeit in suspense since they could not exercise it. One representative view may be quoted:

"The drafters of the Treaty of Versailles, bearing in mind above all the right of peoples to self-determination, formally declared that Mandated Territories were not to be annexed by any Power, be it the community of States known as the League of Nations that was based at Geneva or any individual State. To all intents and purposes, these Territories belong to the indigenous inhabitants and communities, which the League has set out to defend and on whose behalf it acts as a kind of family council". 110/

Palestine was the national home of the Palestinians from time immemorial. The establishment of a national home for an alien people in that country was a violation of the legitimate and fundamental rights of the inhabitants. The League of Nations did not possess the power, any more than the British Government did, to dispose of Palestine, or to grant to the Jews any political or territorial rights in that country. - See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978 ​

(COMMENT)

In most cases, "alienation" of the territory is limited to the authority of the Council or the UN Trusteeship. In the case of the Mandate to Palestine the limitation is specific and prohibits in the terminology "ceded or leased" (no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased). The "alienation" (immigration in this case) was authorized by the (in that time, under existing authority) in the form of Article 6 of the Mandate.

The British, as Mandatory, did not cede or lease any territory. The Council and/or the UN, which have the controlling authority of the Mandates issued made the determination as to the disposition of the territories in question under:

Part I, Section I, Territorial Clauses
ARTICLE I6.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries. SOURCE: Treaty of Lausanne

Part I, Section 2, Special Provisions
ARTICLE 27.

No power or jurisdiction in political, legislative or administrative matters shall be exercised outside Turkish territory by the Turkish Government or authorities, for any reason whatsoever, over the nationals of a territory placed under the sovereignty or protectorate of the other Powers signatory of the present Treaty, or over the nationals of a territory detached from Turkey.

It is understood that the spiritual attributions of the Moslem religious authorities are in no way infringed.

ARTICLE 28.

Each of the High Contracting Parties hereby accepts, in so far as it is concerned, the complete abolition of the Capitulations in Turkey in every respect.
SOURCE: Treaty of Lausanne

(ADDITIONAL COMMENT)

In addition tho the Arab Palestinian recognition of the Partition Plan --- General Assembly 181(II), in 2005 the DPR Issued a side note of some importantance:

International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People

Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 32/40 B of 2 December 1977, the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People is observed annually. The Day commemorates the adoption by the General Assembly on 29 November 1947 of resolution 181 (II), which provides for the partition of Palestine into two States. The observance is held at United Nations Headquarters, the United Nations Offices at Geneva and Vienna, and elsewhere. The event includes solemn meetings at which statements on the question of Palestine are made by high-level officials of the United Nations and intergovernmental organizations and representatives of the international network of NGOs. It also usually includes, at Headquarters, the display of a Palestinian exhibit, film screenings and other activities. At other locations, various activities are organized by governmental bodies and NGOs in cooperation with United Nations Information Centres around the world.
- See more at: CEIRPP DPR - Information note 2005 12 December 2005

However you may interpret the excerpts cited in The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978, there is a recognition site, in the 21st Century concerning the validity of the Partition Plan.

Most Respectfully,
R

I do not think you read my comments well. While I do not disagree with your commentary, I do agree that annexation was never adopted as a solution by the League of Nations or the United Nations. However, you would be hard pressed to find an explicit prohibition. In any event, annexation was never used as a means.

In the case of the Mandate to Palestine the limitation is specific and prohibits in the terminology "ceded or leased" (no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased).

To all intents and purposes, these Territories belong to the indigenous inhabitants and communities,...​

Once we get past all of the irrelevant fluff, we can get to the root of the matter. The fact is that neither the LoN nor the Mandate (nor the UN for that matter) had the authority to cede any Palestinian land. Another fact is that none of them did.

This fact was affirmed by the 1949 UN armistice agreements that show that Palestine's land and international borders remained unchanged from when they were legally established in 1924.

Still spewing that same lie about the Armistice agreements.

NOTHING in the Armistice agreements says that. NOTHING. At all. Not even close.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

I do not think you read my comments well. While I do not disagree with your commentary, I do agree that annexation was never adopted as a solution by the League of Nations or the United Nations. However, you would be hard pressed to find an explicit prohibition. In any event, annexation was never used as a means.

Transfer was never and issue. Nothing was transferred, not in any of the Mandates. That was never an objective. The various sovereignties were either established by treaty (as in Jordan as an example) or through self-determination (as in Israel as an example). But NOT by transfer.

Neither "Treaties" nor the "right of self-determination" was prohibited by law, Covenant, Charter or the Mandate; not then and not now.

It is you who is missing the point and I think it because you want to miss the point.

Several authorities, basing their views on the wording of Article 22 of the Covenant, and stressing that the League was founded on the principle of non-annexation of territories and that the mandates prohibited the alienation of territory (article 5 of the Palestine Mandate), have ruled that sovereignty rested with the people of a Mandated Territory, albeit in suspense since they could not exercise it. One representative view may be quoted:

"The drafters of the Treaty of Versailles, bearing in mind above all the right of peoples to self-determination, formally declared that Mandated Territories were not to be annexed by any Power, be it the community of States known as the League of Nations that was based at Geneva or any individual State. To all intents and purposes, these Territories belong to the indigenous inhabitants and communities, which the League has set out to defend and on whose behalf it acts as a kind of family council". 110/

Palestine was the national home of the Palestinians from time immemorial. The establishment of a national home for an alien people in that country was a violation of the legitimate and fundamental rights of the inhabitants. The League of Nations did not possess the power, any more than the British Government did, to dispose of Palestine, or to grant to the Jews any political or territorial rights in that country. - See more at: The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978 ​

(COMMENT)

In most cases, "alienation" of the territory is limited to the authority of the Council or the UN Trusteeship. In the case of the Mandate to Palestine the limitation is specific and prohibits in the terminology "ceded or leased" (no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased). The "alienation" (immigration in this case) was authorized by the (in that time, under existing authority) in the form of Article 6 of the Mandate.

The British, as Mandatory, did not cede or lease any territory. The Council and/or the UN, which have the controlling authority of the Mandates issued made the determination as to the disposition of the territories in question under:

Part I, Section I, Territorial Clauses
ARTICLE I6.

Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.

The provisions of the present Article do not prejudice any special arrangements arising from neighbourly relations which have been or may be concluded between Turkey and any limitrophe countries. SOURCE: Treaty of Lausanne

Part I, Section 2, Special Provisions
ARTICLE 27.

No power or jurisdiction in political, legislative or administrative matters shall be exercised outside Turkish territory by the Turkish Government or authorities, for any reason whatsoever, over the nationals of a territory placed under the sovereignty or protectorate of the other Powers signatory of the present Treaty, or over the nationals of a territory detached from Turkey.

It is understood that the spiritual attributions of the Moslem religious authorities are in no way infringed.

ARTICLE 28.

Each of the High Contracting Parties hereby accepts, in so far as it is concerned, the complete abolition of the Capitulations in Turkey in every respect.
SOURCE: Treaty of Lausanne

(ADDITIONAL COMMENT)

In addition tho the Arab Palestinian recognition of the Partition Plan --- General Assembly 181(II), in 2005 the DPR Issued a side note of some importantance:

International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People

Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 32/40 B of 2 December 1977, the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People is observed annually. The Day commemorates the adoption by the General Assembly on 29 November 1947 of resolution 181 (II), which provides for the partition of Palestine into two States. The observance is held at United Nations Headquarters, the United Nations Offices at Geneva and Vienna, and elsewhere. The event includes solemn meetings at which statements on the question of Palestine are made by high-level officials of the United Nations and intergovernmental organizations and representatives of the international network of NGOs. It also usually includes, at Headquarters, the display of a Palestinian exhibit, film screenings and other activities. At other locations, various activities are organized by governmental bodies and NGOs in cooperation with United Nations Information Centres around the world.
- See more at: CEIRPP DPR - Information note 2005 12 December 2005

However you may interpret the excerpts cited in The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP DPR study part I 1917-1947 30 June 1978, there is a recognition site, in the 21st Century concerning the validity of the Partition Plan.

Most Respectfully,
R

I do not think you read my comments well. While I do not disagree with your commentary, I do agree that annexation was never adopted as a solution by the League of Nations or the United Nations. However, you would be hard pressed to find an explicit prohibition. In any event, annexation was never used as a means.

In the case of the Mandate to Palestine the limitation is specific and prohibits in the terminology "ceded or leased" (no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased).

To all intents and purposes, these Territories belong to the indigenous inhabitants and communities,...​

Once we get past all of the irrelevant fluff, we can get to the root of the matter. The fact is that neither the LoN nor the Mandate (nor the UN for that matter) had the authority to cede any Palestinian land. Another fact is that none of them did.

This fact was affirmed by the 1949 UN armistice agreements that show that Palestine's land and international borders remained unchanged from when they were legally established in 1924.

But only in respect of the terms of the Mandate and International law at the time. This being 1923 the laws were not same as they were in 1988 or 2000, so why do you always try and impose recent laws on the events of 1923. So in 1923 the territories belonged to the LoN and they could do as pleased with the land. These same international laws were in effect in 1949 and showed that Israel's land was still that granted in 1923. Palestine the nation did not exist until 1988 and what you claim to be international borders are those of the Mandate for Palestine to delineate the various mandates.

Nice try wont fly the wording of the treaties/agreements go against your allegations every time.