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

[montelatici]

The definition you provided is bullshit.

Really? The UN working definition of indigenous is bullshit now?

Yes it is. That's why it is called a "working definition". Anyway, Europeans are not indigenous to Palestine. That's all you need to know.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Coyote, Shusha, Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,

This is actually a trick question.

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.

No, they weren't.

(COMMENT)

The terms of "inhabitants" and "indigenous" are slightly difference from one another but both have the same problem.

The Practical Exercise: (UN Definition of: Indigenous People)

• Condition #1: The older lady next door to me is a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR). Her linage goes back that far.
• Condition #2: I am a second generation American. My parents were born in the US, but my Grandparents were not --- not 100 years in America.
• Condition #3 At the end of the street there is a Vietnamese Family (all US Citizens) that came in 1972 (or there about) and has a daughter the same age as my oldest. They went to High School and College together.

∆ Which condition(s) is describing "inhabitance?"
∆ Which condition(s) is describing "indigenous?"
∆ Which condition(s) have the "Right-to-Self-Determination?"
​

The compound questions that need asked, are:
• When does a person become "indigenous?"
• And when is a person an "inhabitant?"

And under international law, what difference in rights do they have; is one status superior in rights to the other?
• Does the my next door neighbor (Ms DAR) have more rights than me?
• Does my daughter have more rights than her Vietnamese girlfriend?

Most Respectfully,
R

Let me throw this into the mix. I call it the reason for being.

Self- identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member.
------------------------------
IMMIGRANT: In popular usage, an "immigrant" is generally understood to be a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence. Under this definition, therefore, an "immigrant" is an alien admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident. The emphasis in this definition is upon the presumptions that (1) the immigrant followed U.S. laws and procedures in establishing residence in our country; (2) he or she wishes to reside here permanently; and (3) he or she swears allegiance to our country or at least solemnly affirms that he/she will observe and respect our laws and our Constitution.

ALIEN: By contrast, an "alien" is generally understood to be a foreigner -- a person who comes from a foreign country -- who does not owe allegiance to our country.
----------------------
I see three different groups of Jews in the holy land.

1) Those who have lived there...like...forever.
2) Those, who some call Religious Zionists, who moved to the holy land just to live in the holy land.

There was little if any animosity between these two groups and the rest of the population.

3) Political Zionists who went to the holy land to take it over for themselves.

This is the problem.

 

[CMike]

Challenger, et al,

Two points I would like to make.

I supplied the link to the document Communique twice, so that it was easily referenced. And the quote was exact. In every Special Theater operations, especially in the Middle East, there is a bit of truth.

I did not misrepresent anything. HM made a very good plan and craftily wired cable. I take great exception, given that I gave all references and explained the plan in detail.

I'm surprised that you would make such an accusation. Is that all you can do.

What exactly are these specifically and where can I find them within U.N. documents?

(ANSWER)

The "Steps Preparatory to Independence" are to be found in easily Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine, Part I - Section B; 29 November 1948.

In the official media release by the UN and UNPC, Press Release PAL/169 17 May 1948, said in part:

During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, neither of your links mention Israel.

Recommends
to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;

Requests that

(a) The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;

A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947​

Where did the UN get the authority to divide a country and set up governments against the wishes of the people?

Link?

What measures did the Security Council take to implement the plan?

Link?

When was Palestine ever a country?

Link?

When was it ever an independent Muslim state?

It was previously part of the British Empire, and then part of the Ottoman Empire, then part of the Babylonian Empire, then an independent Jewish state, then part of the Roman Empire, and then an independent Jewish State. The romans called it Palestine which actually refers to the Phillistines.

Another Idiotic comment,the Romans were far more educated than the above poster,the Romans knew the difference between the Philistines(who the Jews EXTERMINATED under King David) and the Palestinians the real Semitic people of the area.

CMike...off to the naughty corner with you and on the way collect the Conical Yellow Hat marked with a "D" (for DUNCE) put it on and face the apex of the wall.

The "palestinians" didn't exist at the time.

 

[montelatici]

Challenger, et al,

Two points I would like to make.

I supplied the link to the document Communique twice, so that it was easily referenced. And the quote was exact. In every Special Theater operations, especially in the Middle East, there is a bit of truth.

I did not misrepresent anything. HM made a very good plan and craftily wired cable. I take great exception, given that I gave all references and explained the plan in detail.

I'm surprised that you would make such an accusation. Is that all you can do.

(ANSWER)

The "Steps Preparatory to Independence" are to be found in easily Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine, Part I - Section B; 29 November 1948.

In the official media release by the UN and UNPC, Press Release PAL/169 17 May 1948, said in part:

During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, neither of your links mention Israel.

Recommends
to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;

Requests that

(a) The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;

A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947​

Where did the UN get the authority to divide a country and set up governments against the wishes of the people?

Link?

What measures did the Security Council take to implement the plan?

Link?

When was Palestine ever a country?

Link?

When was it ever an independent Muslim state?

It was previously part of the British Empire, and then part of the Ottoman Empire, then part of the Babylonian Empire, then an independent Jewish state, then part of the Roman Empire, and then an independent Jewish State. The romans called it Palestine which actually refers to the Phillistines.

Another Idiotic comment,the Romans were far more educated than the above poster,the Romans knew the difference between the Philistines(who the Jews EXTERMINATED under King David) and the Palestinians the real Semitic people of the area.

CMike...off to the naughty corner with you and on the way collect the Conical Yellow Hat marked with a "D" (for DUNCE) put it on and face the apex of the wall.

The "palestinians" didn't exist at the time.

What were the people that inhabited Palaestina Prima called? Primis?

 

[Hollie]

Rocco, neither of your links mention Israel.

Recommends
to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;

Requests that

(a) The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;

A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947​

Where did the UN get the authority to divide a country and set up governments against the wishes of the people?

Link?

What measures did the Security Council take to implement the plan?

Link?

When was Palestine ever a country?

Link?

When was it ever an independent Muslim state?

It was previously part of the British Empire, and then part of the Ottoman Empire, then part of the Babylonian Empire, then an independent Jewish state, then part of the Roman Empire, and then an independent Jewish State. The romans called it Palestine which actually refers to the Phillistines.

Another Idiotic comment,the Romans were far more educated than the above poster,the Romans knew the difference between the Philistines(who the Jews EXTERMINATED under King David) and the Palestinians the real Semitic people of the area.

CMike...off to the naughty corner with you and on the way collect the Conical Yellow Hat marked with a "D" (for DUNCE) put it on and face the apex of the wall.

The "palestinians" didn't exist at the time.

What were the people that inhabited Palaestina Prima called? Primis?

What were the squatting Syrians, Lebanese and Egyptians called? Squatters?

What were the invading Ottomon Turk colonists called? Colonists?

That's all you need to know.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore,

While I have to say that your explanation on "Immigrant" 'vs' "Alien" is close enough not to draw disagreement, as Detective Chief Superintendent Foyle would say: "it is not quite the same thing as what I asked."

Coyote, Shusha, Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,

This is actually a trick question.

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.

No, they weren't.

(COMMENT)

The terms of "inhabitants" and "indigenous" are slightly difference from one another but both have the same problem.

The Practical Exercise: (UN Definition of: Indigenous People)

• Condition #1: The older lady next door to me is a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR). Her linage goes back that far.
• Condition #2: I am a second generation American. My parents were born in the US, but my Grandparents were not --- not 100 years in America.
• Condition #3 At the end of the street there is a Vietnamese Family (all US Citizens) that came in 1972 (or there about) and has a daughter the same age as my oldest. They went to High School and College together.

∆ Which condition(s) is describing "inhabitance?"
∆ Which condition(s) is describing "indigenous?"
∆ Which condition(s) have the "Right-to-Self-Determination?"
​

The compound questions that need asked, are:
• When does a person become "indigenous?"
• And when is a person an "inhabitant?"

And under international law, what difference in rights do they have; is one status superior in rights to the other?
• Does the my next door neighbor (Ms DAR) have more rights than me?
• Does my daughter have more rights than her Vietnamese girlfriend?

Most Respectfully,
R

Let me throw this into the mix. I call it the reason for being.

Self- identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member.
------------------------------
IMMIGRANT: In popular usage, an "immigrant" is generally understood to be a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence. Under this definition, therefore, an "immigrant" is an alien admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident. The emphasis in this definition is upon the presumptions that (1) the immigrant followed U.S. laws and procedures in establishing residence in our country; (2) he or she wishes to reside here permanently; and (3) he or she swears allegiance to our country or at least solemnly affirms that he/she will observe and respect our laws and our Constitution.

ALIEN: By contrast, an "alien" is generally understood to be a foreigner -- a person who comes from a foreign country -- who does not owe allegiance to our country.
----------------------
I see three different groups of Jews in the holy land.

1) Those who have lived there...like...forever.
2) Those, who some call Religious Zionists, who moved to the holy land just to live in the holy land.

There was little if any animosity between these two groups and the rest of the population.

3) Political Zionists who went to the holy land to take it over for themselves.

This is the problem.

(COMMENT)

One (of several) of the constant and incessant points made by the pro-Palestinian is that they some special privilege extended to them. Under some authority, they are above the law on matters pertaining to the territory determined by the Allied Powers to be designated as Palestine. The Palestinians hold that by reason of their superior status as "indigenous" people, over that of all other people; including those people encourage to immigrate to the territory designated as Palestine by the Allied Powers. And then the pro-Palestinian claims that as "inhabitants," the hold a superior status over all other people.

The answers to the basic questions has an impact on the exercise of the "right of self-determination." It will establish if there is truly such a thing as a superior claim.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore,

While I have to say that your explanation on "Immigrant" 'vs' "Alien" is close enough not to draw disagreement, as Detective Chief Superintendent Foyle would say: "it is not quite the same thing as what I asked."

Coyote, Shusha, Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,

This is actually a trick question.

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.

No, they weren't.

(COMMENT)

The terms of "inhabitants" and "indigenous" are slightly difference from one another but both have the same problem.

The Practical Exercise: (UN Definition of: Indigenous People)

• Condition #1: The older lady next door to me is a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR). Her linage goes back that far.
• Condition #2: I am a second generation American. My parents were born in the US, but my Grandparents were not --- not 100 years in America.
• Condition #3 At the end of the street there is a Vietnamese Family (all US Citizens) that came in 1972 (or there about) and has a daughter the same age as my oldest. They went to High School and College together.

∆ Which condition(s) is describing "inhabitance?"
∆ Which condition(s) is describing "indigenous?"
∆ Which condition(s) have the "Right-to-Self-Determination?"
​

The compound questions that need asked, are:
• When does a person become "indigenous?"
• And when is a person an "inhabitant?"

And under international law, what difference in rights do they have; is one status superior in rights to the other?
• Does the my next door neighbor (Ms DAR) have more rights than me?
• Does my daughter have more rights than her Vietnamese girlfriend?

Most Respectfully,
R

Let me throw this into the mix. I call it the reason for being.

Self- identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member.
------------------------------
IMMIGRANT: In popular usage, an "immigrant" is generally understood to be a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence. Under this definition, therefore, an "immigrant" is an alien admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident. The emphasis in this definition is upon the presumptions that (1) the immigrant followed U.S. laws and procedures in establishing residence in our country; (2) he or she wishes to reside here permanently; and (3) he or she swears allegiance to our country or at least solemnly affirms that he/she will observe and respect our laws and our Constitution.

ALIEN: By contrast, an "alien" is generally understood to be a foreigner -- a person who comes from a foreign country -- who does not owe allegiance to our country.
----------------------
I see three different groups of Jews in the holy land.

1) Those who have lived there...like...forever.
2) Those, who some call Religious Zionists, who moved to the holy land just to live in the holy land.

There was little if any animosity between these two groups and the rest of the population.

3) Political Zionists who went to the holy land to take it over for themselves.

This is the problem.

(COMMENT)

One (of several) of the constant and incessant points made by the pro-Palestinian is that they some special privilege extended to them. Under some authority, they are above the law on matters pertaining to the territory determined by the Allied Powers to be designated as Palestine. The Palestinians hold that by reason of their superior status as "indigenous" people, over that of all other people; including those people encourage to immigrate to the territory designated as Palestine by the Allied Powers. And then the pro-Palestinian claims that as "inhabitants," the hold a superior status over all other people.

The answers to the basic questions has an impact on the exercise of the "right of self-determination." It will establish if there is truly such a thing as a superior claim.

Most Respectfully,
R

points made by the pro-Palestinian is that they some special privilege extended to them.​

What do you mean by special privilege?

 

[montelatici]

P F Tinmore,

While I have to say that your explanation on "Immigrant" 'vs' "Alien" is close enough not to draw disagreement, as Detective Chief Superintendent Foyle would say: "it is not quite the same thing as what I asked."

Coyote, Shusha, Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,

This is actually a trick question.

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.

No, they weren't.

(COMMENT)

The terms of "inhabitants" and "indigenous" are slightly difference from one another but both have the same problem.

The Practical Exercise: (UN Definition of: Indigenous People)

• Condition #1: The older lady next door to me is a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR). Her linage goes back that far.
• Condition #2: I am a second generation American. My parents were born in the US, but my Grandparents were not --- not 100 years in America.
• Condition #3 At the end of the street there is a Vietnamese Family (all US Citizens) that came in 1972 (or there about) and has a daughter the same age as my oldest. They went to High School and College together.

∆ Which condition(s) is describing "inhabitance?"
∆ Which condition(s) is describing "indigenous?"
∆ Which condition(s) have the "Right-to-Self-Determination?"
​

The compound questions that need asked, are:
• When does a person become "indigenous?"
• And when is a person an "inhabitant?"

And under international law, what difference in rights do they have; is one status superior in rights to the other?
• Does the my next door neighbor (Ms DAR) have more rights than me?
• Does my daughter have more rights than her Vietnamese girlfriend?

Most Respectfully,
R

Let me throw this into the mix. I call it the reason for being.

Self- identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member.
------------------------------
IMMIGRANT: In popular usage, an "immigrant" is generally understood to be a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence. Under this definition, therefore, an "immigrant" is an alien admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident. The emphasis in this definition is upon the presumptions that (1) the immigrant followed U.S. laws and procedures in establishing residence in our country; (2) he or she wishes to reside here permanently; and (3) he or she swears allegiance to our country or at least solemnly affirms that he/she will observe and respect our laws and our Constitution.

ALIEN: By contrast, an "alien" is generally understood to be a foreigner -- a person who comes from a foreign country -- who does not owe allegiance to our country.
----------------------
I see three different groups of Jews in the holy land.

1) Those who have lived there...like...forever.
2) Those, who some call Religious Zionists, who moved to the holy land just to live in the holy land.

There was little if any animosity between these two groups and the rest of the population.

3) Political Zionists who went to the holy land to take it over for themselves.

This is the problem.

(COMMENT)

One (of several) of the constant and incessant points made by the pro-Palestinian is that they some special privilege extended to them. Under some authority, they are above the law on matters pertaining to the territory determined by the Allied Powers to be designated as Palestine. The Palestinians hold that by reason of their superior status as "indigenous" people, over that of all other people; including those people encourage to immigrate to the territory designated as Palestine by the Allied Powers. And then the pro-Palestinian claims that as "inhabitants," the hold a superior status over all other people.

The answers to the basic questions has an impact on the exercise of the "right of self-determination." It will establish if there is truly such a thing as a superior claim.

Most Respectfully,
R

As Detective Chief Superintendent Christopher Foyle once said: "You know, I sometimes wonder why I do this job. And then I come across someone like you." Second season, episode i. "Fifty Ships"

One of the constant points the Zionist bunch makes is that somehow, Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations is either not the instrument that legalized the Mandates and even if it did the term "inhabitant" has another meaning in the that English language. Both claims are baseless.

Firstly, Article 22 first para. states:
"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."

Secondly, The first para of the Mandate for Palestine states:
"The Palestine Mandate
The Council of the League of Nations:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and....."

Of note is the fact that this paragraph is the first paragraph, absent the availability of the drafters for a judge to interview to determine what was meant, when a subsequent term is in conflict, the term that occurs first takes precedence under contract law.

Thirdly, Article 20 of the Covenant of the League of Nations states:
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.

Fourthly, The UN and the British independently, concluded that the settling "non-inhabitants" in Palestine was incompatible with the "well-being" of the Palestinians. The U.N. In United Nations A/364 of 3 Sept. 1947, Supplement 11, para. 150:

"150. It has been suggested that the well-being of the indigenous population of Palestine might be ensured by the unfettered development of the Jewish National Home, "Well-being" in a practical sense, however, must be something more than a mere objective conception; and the Arabs, thinking subjectively, have demonstrated by their acts their belief that the conversion of Palestine into a Jewish State against their will would be very much opposed to their conception of what is essential to their well-being. To contend, therefore, that there is an international obligation to the effect that Jewish immigration should continue with a view to establishing a Jewish majority in the whole of Palestine, would mean ignoring the wishes of the Arab population and their views as to their own well-being. This would involve an apparent violation of what was the governing principle of Article 22 of the Covenant."

file:///Users/alfredfirmani/Documents/Personal/2015/A_364%20of%203%20September%201947.html

The British came to a similar conclusion earlier, in the Report of the Royal Commission of July 1937, PART III
Chapter XX, para. 3.

"The application to Palestine of the Mandate System in general and of the specific Mandate in particular implies the belief that the obligations thus undertaken towards the Arabs and the Jews respectively would prove in course of time to be mutually compatible owing to the conciliatory effect on the Palestinian Arabs of the material prosperity which Jewish immigration would bring in Palestine as a whole. That belief has not been justified, and there seems to be no hope of its being justified in the future."

Plan of partition - Summary of the UK Palestine Royal Commission (Peel Commission) report - League of Nations/Non-UN document (30 November 1937)

So what does this tell us? It tells us that the Zionists here are rabid fanatics that thrive on propaganda and their assertions have no basis in fact.

 

[theliq]

Challenger, et al,

Two points I would like to make.

I supplied the link to the document Communique twice, so that it was easily referenced. And the quote was exact. In every Special Theater operations, especially in the Middle East, there is a bit of truth.

I did not misrepresent anything. HM made a very good plan and craftily wired cable. I take great exception, given that I gave all references and explained the plan in detail.

I'm surprised that you would make such an accusation. Is that all you can do.

(ANSWER)

The "Steps Preparatory to Independence" are to be found in easily Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine, Part I - Section B; 29 November 1948.

In the official media release by the UN and UNPC, Press Release PAL/169 17 May 1948, said in part:

During today's brief meeting, Dr. Eduardo Morgan (Panama) said that this resolution of the Assembly merely "relieves responsibility. The Commission has not been dissolved. In fact the resolution of last November 29 has been implemented."
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, neither of your links mention Israel.

Recommends
to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;

Requests that

(a) The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;

A/RES/181(II) of 29 November 1947​

Where did the UN get the authority to divide a country and set up governments against the wishes of the people?

Link?

What measures did the Security Council take to implement the plan?

Link?

When was Palestine ever a country?

Link?

When was it ever an independent Muslim state?

It was previously part of the British Empire, and then part of the Ottoman Empire, then part of the Babylonian Empire, then an independent Jewish state, then part of the Roman Empire, and then an independent Jewish State. The romans called it Palestine which actually refers to the Phillistines.

Another Idiotic comment,the Romans were far more educated than the above poster,the Romans knew the difference between the Philistines(who the Jews EXTERMINATED under King David) and the Palestinians the real Semitic people of the area.

CMike...off to the naughty corner with you and on the way collect the Conical Yellow Hat marked with a "D" (for DUNCE) put it on and face the apex of the wall.

The "palestinians" didn't exist at the time.

Yawn

 

[theliq]

P F Tinmore,

Yah, this is very strange approach.

[

Palestine became a "successor state" upon the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne.

The Treaty of Lausanne was a peace treaty signed in Lausanne, Switzerland, on 24 July 1923. Treaty of Lausanne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Because the Mandate was assigned to Palestine, Palestine had to already exist. Britain had to wait for this to happen before it could come into effect.

The draft of the Mandate for Palestine was formally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922, supplemented via the 16 September 1922 Trans-Jordan memorandum[2][3] and then came into effect on 29 September 1923[2] British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

When people say that the Mandate was Palestine, that is incorrect. Palestine existed for two months before the Mandate could take effect as a temporarily assigned administration.

(COMMENT)

It is virtually impossible for Palestine to exist as a defined area before the Mandate. First, Palestine was not a state; either before or after the Treaty. The territory to which the Mandate Applied was an artificial legal entity established for the convenience of the Allied Powers for administration. Prior to the creation of the Mandate, no such Place called Palestine actually existed as a state under the previous sovereignties going back a 1000 years. It was just a regional name; and the boundaries were to be defined by the Allied Powers.

The successor government was the established British Mandatory, not the undefined Palestine. A report to the Council of the League of Nations on the administration of Palestine and Trans-Jordan for the year 1938, tgives the geographic area that defines Palestine to a specific geographical area.

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.

••• If the League of Nations and the Allied Powers had actually wanted Palestine, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers, to be a state or nation --- they had all the authority and tools at their disposal. The Territories were surrendered to the Allied Powers (Armistice of Mudros 1918). The Allied Powers created the League of Nations (1919); the Allied Powers were the participants of the San Remo Conventions (1920). The Covenant of the League of Nation was not a limitation or restrictive document to them. Nor were any of the Treaties signed by defeated Enemy Axis Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

With respect Rocco,this could all be solved by giving Land back at least to 1968 or preferably 1948 borders ..steve

Watch out Hoss,you could be laughing on the other side of you face

 

[theliq]

When was Palestine ever a country?

Link?

When was it ever an independent Muslim state?

It was previously part of the British Empire, and then part of the Ottoman Empire, then part of the Babylonian Empire, then an independent Jewish state, then part of the Roman Empire, and then an independent Jewish State. The romans called it Palestine which actually refers to the Phillistines.

Another Idiotic comment,the Romans were far more educated than the above poster,the Romans knew the difference between the Philistines(who the Jews EXTERMINATED under King David) and the Palestinians the real Semitic people of the area.

CMike...off to the naughty corner with you and on the way collect the Conical Yellow Hat marked with a "D" (for DUNCE) put it on and face the apex of the wall.

The "palestinians" didn't exist at the time.

What were the people that inhabited Palaestina Prima called? Primis?

What were the squatting Syrians, Lebanese and Egyptians called? Squatters?

What were the invading Ottomon Turk colonists called? Colonists?

That's all you need to know.

Moron....So what were the few Jews living there called then........let's hear your pearls of wisdom then??????????NOT

 

[Indeependent]

When was it ever an independent Muslim state?

It was previously part of the British Empire, and then part of the Ottoman Empire, then part of the Babylonian Empire, then an independent Jewish state, then part of the Roman Empire, and then an independent Jewish State. The romans called it Palestine which actually refers to the Phillistines.

Another Idiotic comment,the Romans were far more educated than the above poster,the Romans knew the difference between the Philistines(who the Jews EXTERMINATED under King David) and the Palestinians the real Semitic people of the area.

CMike...off to the naughty corner with you and on the way collect the Conical Yellow Hat marked with a "D" (for DUNCE) put it on and face the apex of the wall.

The "palestinians" didn't exist at the time.

What were the people that inhabited Palaestina Prima called? Primis?

What were the squatting Syrians, Lebanese and Egyptians called? Squatters?

What were the invading Ottomon Turk colonists called? Colonists?

That's all you need to know.

Moron....So what were the few Jews living there called then........let's hear your pearls of wisdom then??????????NOT

The same thing that your non-Jew friends call you when you're not around...Jews.

 

[montelatici]

Another Idiotic comment,the Romans were far more educated than the above poster,the Romans knew the difference between the Philistines(who the Jews EXTERMINATED under King David) and the Palestinians the real Semitic people of the area.

CMike...off to the naughty corner with you and on the way collect the Conical Yellow Hat marked with a "D" (for DUNCE) put it on and face the apex of the wall.

The "palestinians" didn't exist at the time.

What were the people that inhabited Palaestina Prima called? Primis?

What were the squatting Syrians, Lebanese and Egyptians called? Squatters?

What were the invading Ottomon Turk colonists called? Colonists?

That's all you need to know.

Moron....So what were the few Jews living there called then........let's hear your pearls of wisdom then??????????NOT

The same thing that your non-Jew friends call you when you're not around...Jews.

No that makes a lot of sense.

 

[Coyote]

P F Tinmore,

Yah, this is very strange approach.

[

Palestine became a "successor state" upon the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne.

The Treaty of Lausanne was a peace treaty signed in Lausanne, Switzerland, on 24 July 1923. Treaty of Lausanne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

Because the Mandate was assigned to Palestine, Palestine had to already exist. Britain had to wait for this to happen before it could come into effect.

The draft of the Mandate for Palestine was formally confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 24 July 1922, supplemented via the 16 September 1922 Trans-Jordan memorandum[2][3] and then came into effect on 29 September 1923[2] British Mandate for Palestine (legal instrument) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

When people say that the Mandate was Palestine, that is incorrect. Palestine existed for two months before the Mandate could take effect as a temporarily assigned administration.

(COMMENT)

It is virtually impossible for Palestine to exist as a defined area before the Mandate. First, Palestine was not a state; either before or after the Treaty. The territory to which the Mandate Applied was an artificial legal entity established for the convenience of the Allied Powers for administration. Prior to the creation of the Mandate, no such Place called Palestine actually existed as a state under the previous sovereignties going back a 1000 years. It was just a regional name; and the boundaries were to be defined by the Allied Powers.

The successor government was the established British Mandatory, not the undefined Palestine. A report to the Council of the League of Nations on the administration of Palestine and Trans-Jordan for the year 1938, tgives the geographic area that defines Palestine to a specific geographical area.

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.

••• If the League of Nations and the Allied Powers had actually wanted Palestine, within such boundaries as may be fixed by the Allied Powers, to be a state or nation --- they had all the authority and tools at their disposal. The Territories were surrendered to the Allied Powers (Armistice of Mudros 1918). The Allied Powers created the League of Nations (1919); the Allied Powers were the participants of the San Remo Conventions (1920). The Covenant of the League of Nation was not a limitation or restrictive document to them. Nor were any of the Treaties signed by defeated Enemy Axis Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

With respect Rocco,this could all be solved by giving Land back at least to 1968 or preferably 1948 borders ..steve

Watch out Hoss,you could be laughing on the other side of you face

Is that like turning the other cheek?

 

[theliq]

Another Idiotic comment,the Romans were far more educated than the above poster,the Romans knew the difference between the Philistines(who the Jews EXTERMINATED under King David) and the Palestinians the real Semitic people of the area.

CMike...off to the naughty corner with you and on the way collect the Conical Yellow Hat marked with a "D" (for DUNCE) put it on and face the apex of the wall.

The "palestinians" didn't exist at the time.

What were the people that inhabited Palaestina Prima called? Primis?

What were the squatting Syrians, Lebanese and Egyptians called? Squatters?

What were the invading Ottomon Turk colonists called? Colonists?

That's all you need to know.

Moron....So what were the few Jews living there called then........let's hear your pearls of wisdom then??????????NOT

The same thing that your non-Jew friends call you when you're not around...Jews.

Hardly,but just like something Zionist Trash would say......hey ho,Indie you are such an unoriginal Bore,YAWN

 

[Indeependent]

The "palestinians" didn't exist at the time.

What were the people that inhabited Palaestina Prima called? Primis?

What were the squatting Syrians, Lebanese and Egyptians called? Squatters?

What were the invading Ottomon Turk colonists called? Colonists?

That's all you need to know.

Moron....So what were the few Jews living there called then........let's hear your pearls of wisdom then??????????NOT

The same thing that your non-Jew friends call you when you're not around...Jews.

No that makes a lot of sense.

I should know...I'm a Jew.
I make it my business to know what's on people's minds as I'm very outgoing and have a lot of non-Jewish friends and co-workers.
When I'm not around, I'm the Jew; in a rather affectionate way.

 

[montelatici]

What were the people that inhabited Palaestina Prima called? Primis?

What were the squatting Syrians, Lebanese and Egyptians called? Squatters?

What were the invading Ottomon Turk colonists called? Colonists?

That's all you need to know.

Moron....So what were the few Jews living there called then........let's hear your pearls of wisdom then??????????NOT

The same thing that your non-Jew friends call you when you're not around...Jews.

No that makes a lot of sense.

I should know...I'm a Jew.
I make it my business to know what's on people's minds as I'm very outgoing and have a lot of non-Jewish friends and co-workers.
When I'm not around, I'm the Jew; in a rather affectionate way.

You're a Jew? What a surprise.

 

[Indeependent]

The "palestinians" didn't exist at the time.

What were the people that inhabited Palaestina Prima called? Primis?

What were the squatting Syrians, Lebanese and Egyptians called? Squatters?

What were the invading Ottomon Turk colonists called? Colonists?

That's all you need to know.

Moron....So what were the few Jews living there called then........let's hear your pearls of wisdom then??????????NOT

The same thing that your non-Jew friends call you when you're not around...Jews.

Hardly,but just like something Zionist Trash would say......hey ho,Indie you are such an unoriginal Bore,YAWN

No, you are a bootlicker whose children will go to Church.
I know this for a fact because my wife's relatives and mine are just like you and all their children are intermarried and their grandchildren are already celebrating Christmas.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore,

While I have to say that your explanation on "Immigrant" 'vs' "Alien" is close enough not to draw disagreement, as Detective Chief Superintendent Foyle would say: "it is not quite the same thing as what I asked."

Coyote, Shusha, Hollie, P F Tinmore, et al,

This is actually a trick question.

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.

No, they weren't.

(COMMENT)

The terms of "inhabitants" and "indigenous" are slightly difference from one another but both have the same problem.

The Practical Exercise: (UN Definition of: Indigenous People)

• Condition #1: The older lady next door to me is a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR). Her linage goes back that far.
• Condition #2: I am a second generation American. My parents were born in the US, but my Grandparents were not --- not 100 years in America.
• Condition #3 At the end of the street there is a Vietnamese Family (all US Citizens) that came in 1972 (or there about) and has a daughter the same age as my oldest. They went to High School and College together.

∆ Which condition(s) is describing "inhabitance?"
∆ Which condition(s) is describing "indigenous?"
∆ Which condition(s) have the "Right-to-Self-Determination?"
​

The compound questions that need asked, are:
• When does a person become "indigenous?"
• And when is a person an "inhabitant?"

And under international law, what difference in rights do they have; is one status superior in rights to the other?
• Does the my next door neighbor (Ms DAR) have more rights than me?
• Does my daughter have more rights than her Vietnamese girlfriend?

Most Respectfully,
R

Let me throw this into the mix. I call it the reason for being.

Self- identification as indigenous peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member.
------------------------------
IMMIGRANT: In popular usage, an "immigrant" is generally understood to be a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence. Under this definition, therefore, an "immigrant" is an alien admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident. The emphasis in this definition is upon the presumptions that (1) the immigrant followed U.S. laws and procedures in establishing residence in our country; (2) he or she wishes to reside here permanently; and (3) he or she swears allegiance to our country or at least solemnly affirms that he/she will observe and respect our laws and our Constitution.

ALIEN: By contrast, an "alien" is generally understood to be a foreigner -- a person who comes from a foreign country -- who does not owe allegiance to our country.
----------------------
I see three different groups of Jews in the holy land.

1) Those who have lived there...like...forever.
2) Those, who some call Religious Zionists, who moved to the holy land just to live in the holy land.

There was little if any animosity between these two groups and the rest of the population.

3) Political Zionists who went to the holy land to take it over for themselves.

This is the problem.

(COMMENT)

One (of several) of the constant and incessant points made by the pro-Palestinian is that they some special privilege extended to them. Under some authority, they are above the law on matters pertaining to the territory determined by the Allied Powers to be designated as Palestine. The Palestinians hold that by reason of their superior status as "indigenous" people, over that of all other people; including those people encourage to immigrate to the territory designated as Palestine by the Allied Powers. And then the pro-Palestinian claims that as "inhabitants," the hold a superior status over all other people.

The answers to the basic questions has an impact on the exercise of the "right of self-determination." It will establish if there is truly such a thing as a superior claim.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are missing the point.

The colonial settlers imported by the Zionists had no intent to identify themselves as a part of the existing society and were not accepted as part of them. They had no intent on being loyal citizens of Palestine. The base of the Mandate was to assist the Jews in obtaining Palestinian citizenship.

They did not match the definition of immigrants as stated above. They do, however, match the definition of aliens - foreigners.

I don't see how they should have any rights at all in Palestine.

 

[Indeependent]

What were the squatting Syrians, Lebanese and Egyptians called? Squatters?

What were the invading Ottomon Turk colonists called? Colonists?

That's all you need to know.

Moron....So what were the few Jews living there called then........let's hear your pearls of wisdom then??????????NOT

The same thing that your non-Jew friends call you when you're not around...Jews.

No that makes a lot of sense.

I should know...I'm a Jew.
I make it my business to know what's on people's minds as I'm very outgoing and have a lot of non-Jewish friends and co-workers.
When I'm not around, I'm the Jew; in a rather affectionate way.

You're a Jew? What a surprise.

Yes; that's why it's so easy for me to see through your nonsense.