The OLDER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

[montelatici]

Sure. I'll give you that "gave" was not the technically correct term. But you aren't addressing my point, which is -- the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate. So why shouldn't the Jewish people have sovereignty, not only in Palestine, but over part of Jordan and Syria and Lebanon and for that matter Egypt and Morocco and Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen...?

Shusha, people of the Jewish religion were a tiny minority in all the places you mention. In Trans-Jordania they were, along with Christians, not even mentioned as being present at all, in the first Report of the Mandatory (unlike the section regarding Palestine ).

When the Mandate was implemented, there were more Christians than Jews in Palestine, and they were almost all recent immigrants as the Report of the Mandatory states:

There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*See Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic.

The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000. Almost all have entered Palestine during the last 40 years. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only a handful of Jews. In the following 30 years a few hundreds came to Palestine.


Mandate for Palestine - Interim report of the Mandatory to the League of Nations/Balfour Declaration text (30 July 1921)

Certainly, the "inhabitants" that Article 22 of the League of Nations referred to included the Christians and Muslims which accounted for more than 90% of the population, and far larger percentage if the newly arrived European colonists were not included.

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

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League."

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

 

[Shusha]

Shusha, people of the Jewish religion were a tiny minority in all the places you mention.

So you are arguing that only majority populations can have self-determination? And that if a land is emptied of its indigenous population by invading and colonizing peoples that the minority remaining indigenous population is not entitled to self-determination?

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

Don't be such a wise-ass. I'm not confused at all. You just didn't get it.

Actually, the Mandate, in the form of the San Remo Convention, existed in 1920. Just because the Mandate was not signed, does not mean it did not have an impact. Reports to the League Council was being made even before the Mandate was formalized. You can this be --- because the magic of the mandate was a creation of the 1919 League which had as its member, the Allied Powers.

Rocco is confused. The "Franco-British Convention on Certain Points Connected with the Mandates for Syria, and the Lebanon, Palestine and Mesopotania" was signed in 1920 more than 2 years before the Mandate for Palestine was signed.

(COMMENT)

The "IDEAs" and the basic content of the Mandate was agreed upon by the Allied Powers in 1920 at the San Remo Convention.

True, the Mandate itself was introduced for adoption in 1922, but the idea to replace the Enemy Occupied Territory Administration (EOTA) with a civil administration was the topic of many discussions between 1918 and 1920, with the fundamental product, verbiage, and limitations were hammered-out and adopted by the Allied Powers at San Remo. And the Allied Powers were operating under the tenants of the Mandate years before the Mandate was actually set to paper before the Council.

EXCERPTS
04/25/1920 Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine mandates - San Remo conference (UK, France, Italy, Japan) - Resolution (Non-UN document)​

The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22, Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognized as independent States, subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The boundaries of the said States will be determined, and the selection of the Mandatories made, by the Principal Allied Powers.

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration • • originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may 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 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.

____________________________________________________________________________​

THE SAN REMO CONVENTION 1920​

The San Remo Conference decided on April 24, 1920 to assign the Mandate [for Palestine] under the League of Nations to Britain. The terms of the Mandate were also discussed with the United States which was not a member of the League. An agreed text was confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on July 24, 1922, and it came into operation in September 1923.[/center]​

The point was, that the Allied Powers already had decided what was going to happen and how they wanted to frame it. They did not actually need the League of Nations or it Covenant at all. Nor did they actually need a written mandate. They were just the manifestation of the Will of the Allied Powers.

In fact, given the hindsight --- the Allied Powers would have been better-off if the had dispensed with the entire League of Nations (LoN)(no covenant at all) concept and the issuance of a LoN Mandate; and just did it. The Hostile Arab Palestinians have been welding their interpretation of Article 22 as if it were a broadsword and an absolute, carved in stone, commandment. When in fact, it was conceived by the Allied Powers, as a forum for the Allied Powers, and dispensed by the Allied Powers when it became unacceptable.

The League of Nations, 1920 ​

EXCERPT: Department of State - Office of the Historian

The League of Nations was an international organization, headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, created after the First World War to provide a forum for resolving international disputes. Though first proposed by President Woodrow Wilson as part of his Fourteen Points plan for an equitable peace in Europe, the United States never became a member.​

​

The Covenant of the League of Nations was not an inherent or imposed Law by a higher power. It was a by-product of the War generated by the "BIG THREE" (Woodrow Wilson of the United States, Georges Clemenceau of France, and David Lloyd George of the United Kingdom).

Most Respectfully,
R

Childish Rocco, the Mandates were legitimate vehicles only as a product of the League of Nations. And, the Balfour Declaration was certainly not any more inherent or imposed Law by a higher power. In fact, the Balfour Declaration, being inconsistent with Article 22, was deemed to have been abrogated by Great Britain open its signing of the Covenant.

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

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

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

 

[jillian]

This thread was created in order to attempt to fix the significant derailment of another thread without having to delete posts.

The topic of this thread is one that comes up with regularity in IP, and is also a frequent derailer of active threads so it will now have a thread of it's own which will be pinned as a "stickie".

I apologize ahead of time for the bumpy discontinuous beginnig of this, but I think it will smooth out as discussion goes on.

The topic is: The history involving the creation of Israel, the British Mandate, and the applicable actions of the UN in that history.

why don't you do a thread about how iraq was created? or jordan? or the united arab emirates?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is so naive, that it is sad.

You have a really fucked up way of looking at things.

The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Syrians and formed the State of Syria. Jewish people lived in Syria. Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Syria?​

First off, the Mandate could not "give" sovereignty to anyone. Sovereignty is the inherent, inalienable right of the inhabitants. Nobody has the authority to change that.

The Mandates had no authority to take or give land. The land belonged to the sovereigns (the inhabitants) without distinction of race, religion, etc..

(COMMENT)

Basic Rule of the World: You are not rewarded for loosing!

First, you are confused as to who had received authority over the territories: (It certainly was not the "inhabitance as you say" --- that was illusionary.)

ARTICLE 16.

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.
​

Yes, as a stand alone document, the Mandate doesn't carry sovereign authority. BUT --- it is not like the British or French Mandatories actually were hampered by that. If they actually need a piece of paper --- they would have written the paper themselves. Just who do you think they were going to ask? WHY!!! They would have the Big Three (US,UK, FR) for permission. They don't even need to ask the LoN; the US wasn't even a member of the League. It was influenced and run by the Allied Powers.

Second, depending on the actual date-time-group, the sovereign (the Ottoman Empire or Turkish Republic) relinquished the title and authority over the territory to the Allied Powers (not some enemy Arab group, or not some enemy inhabitance). For all intent and purposes, the fate of the territories were in the hands of the Allied Powers. The right you keep referring to as inalienable or inherent, came from the Allied Powers. Prior the the creation of the UN (1945); theses rights were not recognized to exist as inalienable or inherent in any Islamic or Muslim country of Kingdom. Nor was it customary law.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Coyote]

This thread was created in order to attempt to fix the significant derailment of another thread without having to delete posts.

The topic of this thread is one that comes up with regularity in IP, and is also a frequent derailer of active threads so it will now have a thread of it's own which will be pinned as a "stickie".

I apologize ahead of time for the bumpy discontinuous beginnig of this, but I think it will smooth out as discussion goes on.

The topic is: The history involving the creation of Israel, the British Mandate, and the applicable actions of the UN in that history.

why don't you do a thread about how iraq was created? or jordan? or the united arab emirates?

Because threads in those forums don't get consistently derailed like threads in IP do. You can start with any topic and it's almost a guarantee that within a few pages the the thread is derailed into the history of the mandate, who has a right to be there, who is an invader/squatter, who is indiginous yada yada yada. This seems like one solution, that avoids having to just delete posts and gives a consistent place to discuss this.

 

[montelatici]

Shusha, people of the Jewish religion were a tiny minority in all the places you mention.

So you are arguing that only majority populations can have self-determination? And that if a land is emptied of its indigenous population by invading and colonizing peoples that the minority remaining indigenous population is not entitled to self-determination?

An indigenous population that changes religions through the ages does not equal the emptying of the land of its indigenous population every time they happen to change religion. The Druid worshipping English that did not leave for Wales and Scotland did not somehow disappear when they began worshipping the Roman religion after Romanization, nor when they adopted Christianity.

According to the Covenant, the inhabitants of the former colonial territories of the Axis powers were to receive tutelage by the Mandatory and become independent states. The Christian and Muslims inhabitants of Palestine presented requests for a constitution to the British which guaranteed equal rights to all inhabitants. This was clear in the first letter from the Palestinian Delegation to the British Colonial Office, to wit:

"PALESTINE.
​

CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE
PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
AND THE
ZIONIST ORGANISATION.​

​

Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
JUNE, 1922.
LONDON:​

The Delegation requests that the constitution for Palestine should—

• 
  
  (1) Safeguard the civil, political and economic interests of the People.
  
  (2) Provide for the creation of a national independent Government in accordance with the spirit of paragraph 4, Article 22, of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
  
  (3) Safeguard the legal rights of foreigners.
  
  (4) Guarantee religious equality to all peoples.
  
  (5) Guarantee the rights of minorities.
  
  (6) Guarantee the rights of the Assisting Power.
  

The Delegation is quite confident that the justice of the British Government and its sense of fair play will make it consider the above remarks with a sympathetic mind, since the Delegation's chief object is to lay in Palestine the foundation of a stable Government that would command the respect of the inhabitants and guarantee peace and prosperity to all."

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

 

[jillian]

This thread was created in order to attempt to fix the significant derailment of another thread without having to delete posts.

The topic of this thread is one that comes up with regularity in IP, and is also a frequent derailer of active threads so it will now have a thread of it's own which will be pinned as a "stickie".

I apologize ahead of time for the bumpy discontinuous beginnig of this, but I think it will smooth out as discussion goes on.

The topic is: The history involving the creation of Israel, the British Mandate, and the applicable actions of the UN in that history.

why don't you do a thread about how iraq was created? or jordan? or the united arab emirates?

Because threads in those forums don't get consistently derailed like threads in IP do. You can start with any topic and it's almost a guarantee that within a few pages the the thread is derailed into the history of the mandate, who has a right to be there, who is an invader/squatter, who is indiginous yada yada yada. This seems like one solution, that avoids having to just delete posts and gives a consistent place to discuss this.

no. my point is if you ask those questions abut israel, you need to ask the same questions about the countries i mentioned since they were "formed" the same way.

 

[Coyote]

This thread was created in order to attempt to fix the significant derailment of another thread without having to delete posts.

The topic of this thread is one that comes up with regularity in IP, and is also a frequent derailer of active threads so it will now have a thread of it's own which will be pinned as a "stickie".

I apologize ahead of time for the bumpy discontinuous beginnig of this, but I think it will smooth out as discussion goes on.

The topic is: The history involving the creation of Israel, the British Mandate, and the applicable actions of the UN in that history.

why don't you do a thread about how iraq was created? or jordan? or the united arab emirates?

Because threads in those forums don't get consistently derailed like threads in IP do. You can start with any topic and it's almost a guarantee that within a few pages the the thread is derailed into the history of the mandate, who has a right to be there, who is an invader/squatter, who is indiginous yada yada yada. This seems like one solution, that avoids having to just delete posts and gives a consistent place to discuss this.

no. my point is if you ask those questions abut israel, you need to ask the same questions about the countries i mentioned since they were "formed" the same way.

Agree...and if people want to they can - I don't care We are just tired of the constant derailing of threads in IP.

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is so naive, that it is sad.

You have a really fucked up way of looking at things.

The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Syrians and formed the State of Syria. Jewish people lived in Syria. Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Syria?​

First off, the Mandate could not "give" sovereignty to anyone. Sovereignty is the inherent, inalienable right of the inhabitants. Nobody has the authority to change that.

The Mandates had no authority to take or give land. The land belonged to the sovereigns (the inhabitants) without distinction of race, religion, etc..

(COMMENT)

Basic Rule of the World: You are not rewarded for loosing!

First, you are confused as to who had received authority over the territories: (It certainly was not the "inhabitance as you say" --- that was illusionary.)

ARTICLE 16.

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.
​

Yes, as a stand alone document, the Mandate doesn't carry sovereign authority. BUT --- it is not like the British or French Mandatories actually were hampered by that. If they actually need a piece of paper --- they would have written the paper themselves. Just who do you think they were going to ask? WHY!!! They would have the Big Three (US,UK, FR) for permission. They don't even need to ask the LoN; the US wasn't even a member of the League. It was influenced and run by the Allied Powers.

Second, depending on the actual date-time-group, the sovereign (the Ottoman Empire or Turkish Republic) relinquished the title and authority over the territory to the Allied Powers (not some enemy Arab group, or not some enemy inhabitance). For all intent and purposes, the fate of the territories were in the hands of the Allied Powers. The right you keep referring to as inalienable or inherent, came from the Allied Powers. Prior the the creation of the UN (1945); theses rights were not recognized to exist as inalienable or inherent in any Islamic or Muslim country of Kingdom. Nor was it customary law.

Most Respectfully,
R

Oh dear. Now "loosing" has a legal effect, whatever "loosing' means.

Let's go through it:

1. The signatories to Covenant agreed to abrogate any obligation or understanding antecedent to the signing of the Covenant that are inconsistent with the terms of the Covenant and agree not enter into any agreement inconsistent with the Covenant after signing.

To wit:

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

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

2. The Mandatory was not the sovereign as Rocco would like to imply. The sovereign would have complete authority, this is not the case:

A little noted terms of Article 22 state, for example:

"The wishes of these communities (the former Turkish possessions, ed.) must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."

The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council."

Note: The permanent members of the council at the time of signing were: United Kingdom, France, Italy and Japan.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Yes, right.

Childish Rocco, the Mandates were legitimate vehicles only as a product of the League of Nations. And, the Balfour Declaration was certainly not any more inherent or imposed Law by a higher power. In fact, the Balfour Declaration, being inconsistent with Article 22, was deemed to have been abrogated by Great Britain open its signing of the Covenant.

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

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

Avalon Project - The Covenant of the League of Nations

(COMMENT)

That is your interpretation. Obviously, the Allied Powers that wrote the Covenant and met at San Remo, did not see it that way.

The Covenant for the League of Nations is often thought of as a stand alone document and independent authority. It is not. It is actually Part I --- The first 30 Articles (of 440 Articles) --- The Versailles Treaty June 28, 1919.

The League of Nations (< 55 members by 1939) was almost universally accepted as a failed organization. There is no real end-date before the 34 member nations met on 18 April1946 for their final meeting as the League; however, the outbreak of WWII in 1939 marked the failure of the primary aim of the League. But many historian will argue that the Versailles Treaty was essentially suspended when Adolf Hitler in 1933 when Hitler announced that Weimar Republic (Germany) would no longer pay any further war reparations as assessed from WWI. ODDLY ENOUGH, when East Germany reunited with West Germany (1990) after an agreement was struck between the BIG FOUR + 1 (France, America, the UK, US and Germany), the debt from the the Great War was awoken. Germany negotiated a re-financing debt payment plan. It was on 3 October 2010 that German made it's final $94 million WWI reparations payment from WWI.

Just so I don't confuse you. The BIG FOUR (US, UK, FR, USSR) did not need the Covenant or the League, or even the master authority of the Treaty, to do what they collectively felt was in the best interest of Civilization at that time. In the case of The "Creation of Israel the UN and the British Mandate," there is a common threat that disengages some and couples other concepts. The tyranny by the Arab Majority over the Jewish Minority effectively blocked. The BIG PICTURE doctrines is one in which the exercise of a moral obligation to assist Israel, in order to prevent an inequitable result, is the epitome of a just cause.

POINT: The Covenant, and by extension the Article 22 of the Treaty of Versailles was no longer in effect. The pro-Palestinian argument attempt to tie this long since irrelevant language to the decisions leading to the, General Assembly establishing the Steps Preparatory to Independence, is unpersuasive. In 1947, when the recommendations were made to the General Assembly, the application of such argument were made irrelevant. Arabs whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict, were not victims of any decisions made relative to the Covenant or Mandate after April '46.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Well, I don't think I said that the Mandatory was the "sovereign" (having absolute authority) over the Territory. What I said was that the previous "sovereign authority" surrendered the title and rights of the territory to the Allied Powers; not the Arab Inhabitants. (Normally the defeated power does not surrender to one of it subordinate states. It surrenders to the powers that were victorious.)

I never said the Mandatory had complete authority. But is would not be any troube at all to secure such authority. By comparison, the enemy inhabitants had no authority.

2. The Mandatory was not the sovereign as Rocco would like to imply. The sovereign would have complete authority, this is not the case:

A little noted terms of Article 22 state, for example:

"The wishes of these communities (the former Turkish possessions, ed.) must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory."

The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council."

Note: The permanent members of the council at the time of signing were: United Kingdom, France, Italy and Japan.

(COMMENT)

Oh I think you need to reread the passage again.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
​

Yeah, they get to request (wish) which of the Principle Allied Powers becomes the Mandatory.

This passage is often misunderstood. It says "Certain Communities." It does not say "all communities." The passage says can acquire recognition as a "Provisional" independent nation. It does not say they are promised independence.

They must be able to stand alone (a prerequisite).

The Palestinians have often used the excuse that they cannot stand alone, yet all the other Mandates in the region were able to meet this criteria. So we know it is possible. Yet the Arab Palestinian cann not meet that threshold.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[alpine]

Here is what happened;

British talked Arabs into raising against Ottomans during the 1st world war
Arabs asked for an Arab state in the mid east in return
British promised them an Arab state in the mid east
But British promised a lot of others, a lot of other things too
Arabs raised against Ottoman
Axis lost the war
British did give some to all (Arabs, French, Italians, Jews)
That pissed of the Arabs
At the end British said "i am out, do whatever you like"

There is a famous saying; there are no rules in war nor love...

Arabs should have sucked it up long time ago. They didn't. They were beaten up bunch of times by a small tiny Jewish state and still refused to suck it up. And now they are in this mess.

Israel should give Arabs the borders Rabin agreed to in Oslo and be done with it...

 

[P F Tinmore]

Sure. I'll give you that "gave" was not the technically correct term. But you aren't addressing my point, which is -- the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate. So why shouldn't the Jewish people have sovereignty, not only in Palestine, but over part of Jordan and Syria and Lebanon and for that matter Egypt and Morocco and Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen...?

the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate.​

Some were. The ones imported from Europe by the Zionists to colonize the land are not.

you keep confusing these two completely different groups.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Shusha, people of the Jewish religion were a tiny minority in all the places you mention.

So you are arguing that only majority populations can have self-determination? And that if a land is emptied of its indigenous population by invading and colonizing peoples that the minority remaining indigenous population is not entitled to self-determination?

An indigenous population that changes religions through the ages does not equal the emptying of the land of its indigenous population every time they happen to change religion. The Druid worshipping English that did not leave for Wales and Scotland did not somehow disappear when they began worshipping the Roman religion after Romanization, nor when they adopted Christianity.

According to the Covenant, the inhabitants of the former colonial territories of the Axis powers were to receive tutelage by the Mandatory and become independent states. The Christian and Muslims inhabitants of Palestine presented requests for a constitution to the British which guaranteed equal rights to all inhabitants. This was clear in the first letter from the Palestinian Delegation to the British Colonial Office, to wit:

"PALESTINE.

CORRESPONDENCE
WITH THE
PALESTINE ARAB DELEGATION
AND THE
ZIONIST ORGANISATION.

Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty.
JUNE, 1922.
LONDON:​

The Delegation requests that the constitution for Palestine should—

• 
  
  (1) Safeguard the civil, political and economic interests of the People.
  
  (2) Provide for the creation of a national independent Government in accordance with the spirit of paragraph 4, Article 22, of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
  
  (3) Safeguard the legal rights of foreigners.
  
  (4) Guarantee religious equality to all peoples.
  
  (5) Guarantee the rights of minorities.
  
  (6) Guarantee the rights of the Assisting Power.

The Delegation is quite confident that the justice of the British Government and its sense of fair play will make it consider the above remarks with a sympathetic mind, since the Delegation's chief object is to lay in Palestine the foundation of a stable Government that would command the respect of the inhabitants and guarantee peace and prosperity to all."

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

The Christian and Muslims inhabitants of Palestine presented requests for a constitution to the British which guaranteed equal rights to all inhabitants.​

OMG, how can a superior race accept such a thing?

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is so naive, that it is sad.

You have a really fucked up way of looking at things.

The Mandate gave sovereignty over a portion of the land to the Syrians and formed the State of Syria. Jewish people lived in Syria. Did the Mandate "take land away" from the Jewish people in order to create Syria?​

First off, the Mandate could not "give" sovereignty to anyone. Sovereignty is the inherent, inalienable right of the inhabitants. Nobody has the authority to change that.

The Mandates had no authority to take or give land. The land belonged to the sovereigns (the inhabitants) without distinction of race, religion, etc..

(COMMENT)

Basic Rule of the World: You are not rewarded for loosing!

First, you are confused as to who had received authority over the territories: (It certainly was not the "inhabitance as you say" --- that was illusionary.)

ARTICLE 16.

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.
​

Yes, as a stand alone document, the Mandate doesn't carry sovereign authority. BUT --- it is not like the British or French Mandatories actually were hampered by that. If they actually need a piece of paper --- they would have written the paper themselves. Just who do you think they were going to ask? WHY!!! They would have the Big Three (US,UK, FR) for permission. They don't even need to ask the LoN; the US wasn't even a member of the League. It was influenced and run by the Allied Powers.

Second, depending on the actual date-time-group, the sovereign (the Ottoman Empire or Turkish Republic) relinquished the title and authority over the territory to the Allied Powers (not some enemy Arab group, or not some enemy inhabitance). For all intent and purposes, the fate of the territories were in the hands of the Allied Powers. The right you keep referring to as inalienable or inherent, came from the Allied Powers. Prior the the creation of the UN (1945); theses rights were not recognized to exist as inalienable or inherent in any Islamic or Muslim country of Kingdom. Nor was it customary law.

Most Respectfully,
R

First, you are confused as to who had received authority over the territories: (It certainly was not the "inhabitance as you say" --- that was illusionary.)​

The theory of popular sovereignty, the dominant theory that is the base for much international law, states that the people of the place are the sovereigns inside their defined territory. The Palestinians have the inherent, inalienable right:

To self determination without external interference.

To independence and sovereignty.

To territorial integrity.​

As affirmed by subsequent UN resolutions.

How do all of your pages of foreign crap fit into this picture?

 

[Hollie]

Sure. I'll give you that "gave" was not the technically correct term. But you aren't addressing my point, which is -- the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate. So why shouldn't the Jewish people have sovereignty, not only in Palestine, but over part of Jordan and Syria and Lebanon and for that matter Egypt and Morocco and Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen...?

the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate.​

Some were. The ones imported from Europe by the Zionists to colonize the land are not.

you keep confusing these two completely different groups.

You keep confusing terms and definitions.

The Jewish people were, and always have been inhabitants of the area. The Jewish people, like other non-Islamists, were driven out of the region as a function of the Islamist invaders, the Ottoman colonists and then the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders / squatters. Establishment of the Jewish State was a reaffirmation of the Jews historical ties to the land.

The establishment of Israel was yet another humiliation for Arabs as their pogrom to purge all competing religions / cultures from the Islamist Middle East was met with a modern, educated culture, perceived along Western values of democracy and personal freedoms that were antithetical to Moslem mores of theocratic totalitarianism.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Sure. I'll give you that "gave" was not the technically correct term. But you aren't addressing my point, which is -- the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate. So why shouldn't the Jewish people have sovereignty, not only in Palestine, but over part of Jordan and Syria and Lebanon and for that matter Egypt and Morocco and Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen...?

the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate.​

Some were. The ones imported from Europe by the Zionists to colonize the land are not.

you keep confusing these two completely different groups.

You keep confusing terms and definitions.

The Jewish people were, and always have been inhabitants of the area. The Jewish people, like other non-Islamists, were driven out of the region as a function of the Islamist invaders, the Ottoman colonists and then the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders / squatters. Establishment of the Jewish State was a reaffirmation of the Jews historical ties to the land.

The establishment of Israel was yet another humiliation for Arabs as their pogrom to purge all competing religions / cultures from the Islamist Middle East was met with a modern, educated culture, perceived along Western values of democracy and personal freedoms that were antithetical to Moslem mores of theocratic totalitarianism.

Some were. Most were not.

You need to read up.

 

[Hollie]

Sure. I'll give you that "gave" was not the technically correct term. But you aren't addressing my point, which is -- the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate. So why shouldn't the Jewish people have sovereignty, not only in Palestine, but over part of Jordan and Syria and Lebanon and for that matter Egypt and Morocco and Algeria, Tunisia, Yemen...?

the Jewish people are also inhabitants (and therefore the sovereigns) of the entire area of the Mandate.​

Some were. The ones imported from Europe by the Zionists to colonize the land are not.

you keep confusing these two completely different groups.

You keep confusing terms and definitions.

The Jewish people were, and always have been inhabitants of the area. The Jewish people, like other non-Islamists, were driven out of the region as a function of the Islamist invaders, the Ottoman colonists and then the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders / squatters. Establishment of the Jewish State was a reaffirmation of the Jews historical ties to the land.

The establishment of Israel was yet another humiliation for Arabs as their pogrom to purge all competing religions / cultures from the Islamist Middle East was met with a modern, educated culture, perceived along Western values of democracy and personal freedoms that were antithetical to Moslem mores of theocratic totalitarianism.

Some were. Most were not.

You need to read up.

I have read up and I took the time to explain it to you so you could write with clarity.

It's typical of the Islamist Pom Pom flailers to ignore that the history of the area is described by one tribe of Islamist invaders slaughtering the competing tribe.

It's a shame that Islamists are forever consigned to live in the past as warring tribes, always the angry, self-haters. The relevant first world shakes its collective head in disgust as Third world islamos' demand a voice in global matters while they step over the dead bodies of their co-Islamists.

 

[Shusha]

An indigenous population that changes religions through the ages does not equal the emptying of the land of its indigenous population every time they happen to change religion.

This more properly belongs on the other thread but ... an indigenous population which adopts and is absorbed into the invading and colonizing group so the two are no longer culturally distinguishable from each other is no longer the indigenous population. The indigenous culture is the culture of the pre-invasion peoples.