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

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

In 1988, nearly three-weeks after the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the West Bank and about three-months before Palestine declared independence --- The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) as they say --- "raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors," --- and --- affirmed that there is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad." Periodically HAMAS has reiterated that same premise, with Khalid Mish’al, Chief, Political Bureau, HAMAS, stating in as Policy, that "Jihad and armed resistance is the correct and authentic means for the liberation of Palestine and the restoration of all rights." This is a primary principle and our strategic choice.

The term "Jihad" --- as Khalid Mish’al uses the it, suggests what they believe their lives are about—holy war ---that is directed against people they believe are their enemies --- and --- the enemies of their way of life.

The Grand Strategy for HAMAS is basically the same for almost every jihadi group. They want to restore the greatness of their vision of Islam by defeating every rival to its power. The means by which they are going to attempt this are also the same and fit into this grand strategic vision. They are hoping to create an Muslim State.

HAMAS is not necessarily convinced that the liberation of the 1967 occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) is a practical goal. HAMAS is of the opinion that any Jihadi Group which can liberate the territories occupied in 1967 is able to liberate the rest of Palestine; with the aim to unify all the territory formerly under the Mandate prior to May 1948.

The Arab Palestinians habitually rely on or exploit others and gives virtually nothing in return.

Only after Israel stole, bombed, or bulldozed their productive infrastructure.

Gaza was not returned, the Israelis just made it an outdoor prison. The Israelis control the air space, the territorial see and the accessible land border.

(COMMENT)

Generally, these military strategies are based on something extremists call the “Method of Mohammad (PBUH).” This term comes from a lot of interpretation of the Qur’an and Hadith, but it also comes from something called the Sirah (Life of the Prophet), widely known in the Islamic world (radical or otherwise).

When prophet was deciding who he was first going to confront with violence, he was surrounded by people who did not support him, and it was those people he was first forced to engage with violence—those people
who lived directly around him. This is referred to as "Near Targets" (or "Near Enemy"). In the frame of reference for HAMAS, these are anyone in the Islamic lands—those who have occupied Islamic lands, those who have taken away Islamic territory. Again, this is that territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.
​

This is important, and has been relayed several times in several different mediums; and is part of the HAMAS Political Policy.

• Palestine, from its [Jordan] river to its [Mediterranean] sea, from its north to its south, is the land of the Palestinian people; it is their homeland and their legitimate right. We will not relinquish an inch or any part of it – for any reason or under any circumstances or pressures.

• Palestine, in its entirety, is an Arab and Islamic land. It has Islamic and Arab affiliations and is considered a blessed and sacred land. Moreover, it has a special place in the heart of every Arab and Muslim, and also has a status and respect in all religions.
​

It must be understood, that while HAMAS and its other affiliated Jihadi associates, pound the table, rant and rave about the Israel and its Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes, it is Radical Islamic Strategy for HAMAS to disregard any Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) that impedes their Grand Strategy. Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency against such asymmetric adversaries should take into account that Hamas, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the Quds Force observe and share each others tactics. These techniques must be assessed they not only to detect newly evolving terror tactics and urban warfare techniques but also an elaborate psychological and doctrinal campaign to draw fresh recruits to its cause.

Thus, as asymmetric forces like HAMAS hide under the color of quasi-Governments, have openly adopted to engage near enemy soft targets by any and all means, the Israeli security plans and strategies must adopt what necessary measure it must take to protect is independence, sovereignty, and citizenry of Israel.

ANY Hostile Arab Palestinian activity can trigger a ratcheting of Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency security countermeasures. It is the unintended consequences of Hostile Arab Palestinian activity.

Most Respectfully,
R

Again, this is that territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.​

You keep using this term to confuse people. You know that the Mandate was merely a temporarily appointed administration. It had no territory or borders.

And you forget that there were two mandate in force, and get confused about the roles each played. One was the legal entity of the area known as Palestine the other was the nation allotted to oversee the running of the land yet to become a nation until such time as it was capable.
The British mandatory was a temporarily appointed administration, which is why it was so easy to pass on to the U.N. The mandate of Palestine is still in existence and will be until all the land is fully claimed.



READ THE TWO SEPERATE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE MANDATE OF PALESTINE AND THE BRIRISH MANDATE





Just to educate you again the mandate of Palestine had whatever borders the LoN decided it would have. it is in the legal treaty documents. And you ignore these aspects every time

 

[Phoenall]

Why would the Turks be "crusading"? Do you have any clue what it means. LOL

The Turks merely replaced the Mamluks as rulers in Palestine. They did not settle Turks in Palestine. The Muslims and Christians of Palestine were happy to be rid of the Mamluks.

There were no Egyptian, Syrian or Lebanese squatters. Only European Jewish invaders.

You're stuttering and mumbling.

Do your homework assignment in the Crusading / colonizing Turks.

We'll then move on to the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese invaders / colonizers.

Why do you insist on confirming your ignorance. Answer the question, why would the Turks be "crusading"? Do you have a clue what the word means. LOL

Land grabs which were common at that time, no UN to impose laws and rules to stop this from happening. Why did the Catholic church go Crusading in the middle east and America's ?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

NO, you keep ignoring the most important part.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well, that has little to do with reality.

Nearly everyone agrees that there are (at least) the five basic modes for the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty; one of which is known as "cessation." This can go in either direction (acquisition of divestiture).

By signing the treaty, the Allied Powers agreed to the expression and contents. The variant here is that the Allied Powers intended (once the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic were out of the equation) that (in some form and at sometime in the future) all the inhabitants would have the opportunity to establish self-governing institutions (self-determination). The territory we call today as the "occupied Palestinian territories" (oPt) come to exist as a political subdivision of its own based on the divestiture by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic (the undisputed sovereign for the eight centuries previous.

While you may disagree, in the practical sense, a claim to sovereignty based not upon some particular act or title such as a treaty of cession but merely upon continued display of authority, involves two elements each of which must be shown to exist:

• The intention and will to act as a sovereign,
• The actual exercise or display of such authority.
​

(COMMENT)

It does not matter what was annexed or not, the fact of the matter is, that just like the Armistice of Mudros, the Treaty of Sevres, and the Treaty of Lausanne, it is called the Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty by "cession."

"When a state transfers its territory to another state, acquisition by cession takes place in favour of such later state. The cession of territory may be voluntary or maybe under compulsion as a result of war. The act of cession maybe even in the nature of a gift, sale, exchange or lease. Cession is the transfer of territory usually by treaty from one state to another."​

It is NOT so dissimilar to when Jordan cut all ties with West Bank. That only left Israel as the remaining government in place. The is similar to Acquisition by Occupation; when West Bank territory is not under the authority of any other state, a state can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation; having been abandoned by the previous sovereignty of the Hashemite Kingdom.

But a simple insistence, by the Arab Palestinians, of the rights of self-determination, independence and sovereignty --- or ---- an intention to render the control over the territory is not sufficient. There must be an actual display of authority.

Most Respectfully,
R

You keep skipping over the most important part. Neither the LoN nor the Mandate claimed title or sovereignty over that territory.

They held it in trust until the inhabitants could stand alone. However, Britain violated the LoN Covenant and prevented that from happening.

(COMMENT)

The "LoN nor the Mandate claimed title or sovereignty over that territory," it was granted to the Allied Powers as a collective when they signed the treaty.

The concept is embedded in the idea that a power can gain sovereignty or lose sovereignty.

IN a "cession of territory" TWO things generally happen. In the case of the territory outside Turkey, the act of cession was compulsion (Article 16) as a result of a conflict outcome. The Allied Powers, and the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic accept the terms and conditions upon signature and ratification.

As far as the Covenant goes, the Arabs of Palestine --- even if they are the "certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire (which is by no means clear)," have yet to demonstrate that they are capable to "stand alone." They have a hard enough time just figuring-out who represents them. And, there is nothing in the Covenant that prevents the Allied Powers from determining "the future of these territories;" in accordance with the treaty and at the discretion of the Allied Powers.

Most Respectfully,
R

have yet to demonstrate that they are capable to "stand alone."​

Indeed, it is called illegal external interference.

Indeed, it's called 'Pal'istanian' Welfare Syndrome.

Speaking of welfare, Israel is the mooch capital of the world.

Proven wrong many times by looking at he amounts received per group, with islam receiving 20 times more than the Jews overall.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is an unexplained derogatory comment.

Speaking of welfare, Israel is the mooch capital of the world.

(COMMENT)

The Arab Palestinians habitually rely on or exploit others and gives virtually nothing in return.
Their legacy is that of a leech off the work and avails of others; takers and non-contributors that are growing in numbers. Their notion of work is narrow and shallow.

In contrast --- Israel has large population centers; marvels in science and contributions to the scientific community, excels in architecture, and progressive and unique art styles. While the US gives Israel aid over a number of given projects, they are investments and help in the preservation of the Jewish Culture, the only nation of its kind. BUT, Israel does not call on the international community to coe together and donate large sums of money with no reasonable expectation on a return to the donor investment.

AGAIN, A VERY BIG DIFFERENCE>

Most Respectfully,
R

The Arab Palestinians habitually rely on or exploit others and gives virtually nothing in return.​

Only after Israel stole, bombed, or bulldozed their productive infrastructure.

Such are the fruits of a war you have no hope of winning. Don't start a fight you know you cant win as you will lose more than you expect. The palestinians have always relied on others to support them, prior to 1918 it was the indigenous Jews and Christians that were forced into paying taxes, tithes and protection money to arab muslim thugs. That stopped and the Palestinians started to go hungry and become beggars

 

[Phoenall]

Gaza was not returned, the Israelis just made it an outdoor prison. The Israelis control the air space, the territorial see and the accessible land border.

Apart from the parts controlled by Egypt who have the same problems with the terrorists attacking women and children.


ACCORDING TO THE CRITERIA LAID DOWN IN INTERNATIONAL LAW iSREAL DOES NOT OCCUPY GAZA AS IT DOES NOT HAVE A MILITARY STRANGLEHOLD ON EVERY SQUARE INCH. EVEN HAMAS HAS STATED THAT ISRAEL HAS NOT OCCUPIED GAZA SINCE 2005

 

[Phoenall]

No, the Israelis just made Gaza an outdoor prison maintaining a blockade. Attacking the blockading force is appropriate.

Just as responding to those attacks and the illegal weapons is also appropriate and legal. The Palestinians are in breach of UN resolutions, UN charter, IHL and Geneva conventions by firing each weapon into Israel.

 

[Phoenall]

I just state the facts. That's what gets to you.

WRONG you just repeat islamonazi propaganda and pallywood lies

 

[Phoenall]

I only state fact. It is you who are a source of amusement to all by the way you expose your ignorance every time you post.

Show one fact then that is supported by unbiased reports ?

 

[Phoenall]

The only hostiles are the Jewish invaders.

When did they invade, and which country were they invading from ?

remember to be invited is not an invasion, far from it and the last two sovereign rulers of Palestine invited the Jews to migrate and close colonise. ( look at what the term means in real life )

 

[Phoenall]

Why would the Turks be "crusading"? Do you have any clue what it means. LOL

The Turks merely replaced the Mamluks as rulers in Palestine. They did not settle Turks in Palestine. The Muslims and Christians of Palestine were happy to be rid of the Mamluks.

There were no Egyptian, Syrian or Lebanese squatters. Only European Jewish invaders.

Which nation organised this invasion then, and paid the costs.

Why are there so many Palestinians with Egyptian, Syrian and Iranian names. And why have so many became Palestinian leaders over the years ? Why no homegrown leaders showing in palestines history ?

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

In 1988, nearly three-weeks after the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the West Bank and about three-months before Palestine declared independence --- The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) as they say --- "raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors," --- and --- affirmed that there is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad." Periodically HAMAS has reiterated that same premise, with Khalid Mish’al, Chief, Political Bureau, HAMAS, stating in as Policy, that "Jihad and armed resistance is the correct and authentic means for the liberation of Palestine and the restoration of all rights." This is a primary principle and our strategic choice.

The term "Jihad" --- as Khalid Mish’al uses the it, suggests what they believe their lives are about—holy war ---that is directed against people they believe are their enemies --- and --- the enemies of their way of life.

The Grand Strategy for HAMAS is basically the same for almost every jihadi group. They want to restore the greatness of their vision of Islam by defeating every rival to its power. The means by which they are going to attempt this are also the same and fit into this grand strategic vision. They are hoping to create an Muslim State.

HAMAS is not necessarily convinced that the liberation of the 1967 occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) is a practical goal. HAMAS is of the opinion that any Jihadi Group which can liberate the territories occupied in 1967 is able to liberate the rest of Palestine; with the aim to unify all the territory formerly under the Mandate prior to May 1948.

The Arab Palestinians habitually rely on or exploit others and gives virtually nothing in return.

Only after Israel stole, bombed, or bulldozed their productive infrastructure.

Gaza was not returned, the Israelis just made it an outdoor prison. The Israelis control the air space, the territorial see and the accessible land border.

(COMMENT)

Generally, these military strategies are based on something extremists call the “Method of Mohammad (PBUH).” This term comes from a lot of interpretation of the Qur’an and Hadith, but it also comes from something called the Sirah (Life of the Prophet), widely known in the Islamic world (radical or otherwise).

When prophet was deciding who he was first going to confront with violence, he was surrounded by people who did not support him, and it was those people he was first forced to engage with violence—those people
who lived directly around him. This is referred to as "Near Targets" (or "Near Enemy"). In the frame of reference for HAMAS, these are anyone in the Islamic lands—those who have occupied Islamic lands, those who have taken away Islamic territory. Again, this is that territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.
​

This is important, and has been relayed several times in several different mediums; and is part of the HAMAS Political Policy.

• Palestine, from its [Jordan] river to its [Mediterranean] sea, from its north to its south, is the land of the Palestinian people; it is their homeland and their legitimate right. We will not relinquish an inch or any part of it – for any reason or under any circumstances or pressures.

• Palestine, in its entirety, is an Arab and Islamic land. It has Islamic and Arab affiliations and is considered a blessed and sacred land. Moreover, it has a special place in the heart of every Arab and Muslim, and also has a status and respect in all religions.
​

It must be understood, that while HAMAS and its other affiliated Jihadi associates, pound the table, rant and rave about the Israel and its Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes, it is Radical Islamic Strategy for HAMAS to disregard any Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) that impedes their Grand Strategy. Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency against such asymmetric adversaries should take into account that Hamas, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the Quds Force observe and share each others tactics. These techniques must be assessed they not only to detect newly evolving terror tactics and urban warfare techniques but also an elaborate psychological and doctrinal campaign to draw fresh recruits to its cause.

Thus, as asymmetric forces like HAMAS hide under the color of quasi-Governments, have openly adopted to engage near enemy soft targets by any and all means, the Israeli security plans and strategies must adopt what necessary measure it must take to protect is independence, sovereignty, and citizenry of Israel.

ANY Hostile Arab Palestinian activity can trigger a ratcheting of Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency security countermeasures. It is the unintended consequences of Hostile Arab Palestinian activity.

Most Respectfully,
R

Again, this is that territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.​

You keep using this term to confuse people. You know that the Mandate was merely a temporarily appointed administration. It had no territory or borders.

CONFUSED.COM again tinny..........................WHICH MANDATE ARE YOU ON ABOUT

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

In 1988, nearly three-weeks after the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the West Bank and about three-months before Palestine declared independence --- The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) as they say --- "raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors," --- and --- affirmed that there is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad." Periodically HAMAS has reiterated that same premise, with Khalid Mish’al, Chief, Political Bureau, HAMAS, stating in as Policy, that "Jihad and armed resistance is the correct and authentic means for the liberation of Palestine and the restoration of all rights." This is a primary principle and our strategic choice.

The term "Jihad" --- as Khalid Mish’al uses the it, suggests what they believe their lives are about—holy war ---that is directed against people they believe are their enemies --- and --- the enemies of their way of life.

The Grand Strategy for HAMAS is basically the same for almost every jihadi group. They want to restore the greatness of their vision of Islam by defeating every rival to its power. The means by which they are going to attempt this are also the same and fit into this grand strategic vision. They are hoping to create an Muslim State.

HAMAS is not necessarily convinced that the liberation of the 1967 occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) is a practical goal. HAMAS is of the opinion that any Jihadi Group which can liberate the territories occupied in 1967 is able to liberate the rest of Palestine; with the aim to unify all the territory formerly under the Mandate prior to May 1948.

The Arab Palestinians habitually rely on or exploit others and gives virtually nothing in return.

Only after Israel stole, bombed, or bulldozed their productive infrastructure.

Gaza was not returned, the Israelis just made it an outdoor prison. The Israelis control the air space, the territorial see and the accessible land border.

(COMMENT)

Generally, these military strategies are based on something extremists call the “Method of Mohammad (PBUH).” This term comes from a lot of interpretation of the Qur’an and Hadith, but it also comes from something called the Sirah (Life of the Prophet), widely known in the Islamic world (radical or otherwise).

When prophet was deciding who he was first going to confront with violence, he was surrounded by people who did not support him, and it was those people he was first forced to engage with violence—those people
who lived directly around him. This is referred to as "Near Targets" (or "Near Enemy"). In the frame of reference for HAMAS, these are anyone in the Islamic lands—those who have occupied Islamic lands, those who have taken away Islamic territory. Again, this is that territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.
​

This is important, and has been relayed several times in several different mediums; and is part of the HAMAS Political Policy.

• Palestine, from its [Jordan] river to its [Mediterranean] sea, from its north to its south, is the land of the Palestinian people; it is their homeland and their legitimate right. We will not relinquish an inch or any part of it – for any reason or under any circumstances or pressures.

• Palestine, in its entirety, is an Arab and Islamic land. It has Islamic and Arab affiliations and is considered a blessed and sacred land. Moreover, it has a special place in the heart of every Arab and Muslim, and also has a status and respect in all religions.
​

It must be understood, that while HAMAS and its other affiliated Jihadi associates, pound the table, rant and rave about the Israel and its Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes, it is Radical Islamic Strategy for HAMAS to disregard any Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) that impedes their Grand Strategy. Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency against such asymmetric adversaries should take into account that Hamas, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the Quds Force observe and share each others tactics. These techniques must be assessed they not only to detect newly evolving terror tactics and urban warfare techniques but also an elaborate psychological and doctrinal campaign to draw fresh recruits to its cause.

Thus, as asymmetric forces like HAMAS hide under the color of quasi-Governments, have openly adopted to engage near enemy soft targets by any and all means, the Israeli security plans and strategies must adopt what necessary measure it must take to protect is independence, sovereignty, and citizenry of Israel.

ANY Hostile Arab Palestinian activity can trigger a ratcheting of Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency security countermeasures. It is the unintended consequences of Hostile Arab Palestinian activity.

Most Respectfully,
R

Again, this is that territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.​

You keep using this term to confuse people. You know that the Mandate was merely a temporarily appointed administration. It had no territory or borders.

CONFUSED.COM again tinny..........................WHICH MANDATE ARE YOU ON ABOUT

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh no, I don't think it is confusing at all.

When you say: "You know that the Mandate was merely a temporarily appointed administration. It had no territory or borders." you are implying that there were no specific territorial limits associated with the League of Nations Mandate created after the First World War when the Ottoman Empire was apportioned by the Treaty of Sèvres. In Article 25 of the Mandate, the Emirate of Transjordan (1921-1946), was British-controlled territory, under the Mandate.

Specific to our discussion, the Mandate of Palestine comprised territory that now consists of modern-day Jordan , Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Paulet-Newcombe Line, also known as the Franco-British Boundary Agreements, were a sequence of agreements signed between 1920-23 between the British and French governments regarding the position and nature of the boundary between the Mandates of Palestine and Mesopotamia, attributed to Great Britain, and the Mandate of Syria and the Lebanon, attributed to France. The agreements fixed the line of the Syrian-Palestinian border (now the Syrian-Israeli border) between the Mediterranean Sea and the town of Al-Hamma.[1]The agreement takes its name from French Lieutenant Colonel N. Paulet and British Lieutenant Colonel S. F. Newcombe, who were appointed to lead the Boundary Commission.

The boundary between the forthcoming British and French mandates was defined in broad terms in the 1920 "Franco-British Convention on Certain Points Connected with the Mandates for Syria and the Lebanon, Palestine and Mesopotamia", signed in Paris, on 23 December 1920. That agreement placed the bulk of the Golan Heights in the French sphere. The treaty also established a joint commission to settle the precise details of the border and mark it on the ground.[3]

The commission submitted its final report on 3 February 1922, which included a number of amendments. It was approved with some caveats by the French and British governments on 7 March 1923, several months before Britain and France assumed their Mandatory responsibilities on 29 September 1923.
SOURCE: Wiki Paulet–Newcombe_Agreement

​

Approximately (≈) 76%-77% of the Mandate (for protectorate reasons) called Transjordan --- was given to the Emir Abdullah by the British [territory East of the Jordan River and extending to Mesopotamia (present day Iraq)]. At the time the first Palestine Order in Council was published, the definition was:

The phrase, "the territories to which the Mandate applies" (or variations thereof) flow directly from the definition published in the Palestine Order in Council.

Again, this is that territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.

You keep using this term to confuse people. You know that the Mandate was merely a temporarily appointed administration. It had no territory or borders.

(COMMENT)

Yes it is true that a Mandate (itself) is an order from authority (legal commission for the administration), or a politically recognized commission; however, every order, mandate, or commission has its limitations -- with the question of: to what does it apply? The limit of the Mandate for Palestine was a territorial boundary --- in 1922 (when the Palestine Order in Council was written), the nomenclature for the territory was derivative from the Treaty of Sevres:

SECTION VII --- SYRIA, MESOPOTAMIA, PALESTINE.
ARTICLE 95.

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.
​

(CENTRAL POINT)

There is an argument to be made that the San Remo Peace Conference (and the adoption of the Balfour Declaration) was the pivotal point in the creation of an associated territory --- and an Administration for that territory. Although the Supreme Council did not have a clear set of boundaries established yet, they were confident that they could work with an approximation until a Joint Boundary Survey could hammer-out the lines. Hence, the phrase, "the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them" was put into use. Of course --- this was later established by Colonels Paulette and Newman. And it was at that point the, the adoption of the 1923 Paulette-Newman Agreement that the first real steps towards the establishment of the Jewish National Home was begun.

A theme to this central point is the idea that in they would erect a right for the Jewish People (worldwide) to gain refuge in their homeland; a place that they could control and protect against the excesses of the so many that used the color of law to exploit the Jewish People. While today much of the original intent to protect and preserve the Jewish People and their culture has faded and ceased to exist; all the rights of the Jewish People that were derived from the linage of the Balfour Declaration and onward remained in full force. And this included what was to become known as the "right of self-determination."

Just as, at the time the Mandates were created, the applicable phrase was "former territories of the Ottoman Empire," so it became after the termination of the British Mandate, "former territories to which the Mandate Applied." And this phrase became popular by the post-1948 War Arabs of Palestine (within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers) to which they lay claim.

"The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense." (The Arab League -- Arab Higher Committee) Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh no, I don't think it is confusing at all.

When you say: "You know that the Mandate was merely a temporarily appointed administration. It had no territory or borders." you are implying that there were no specific territorial limits associated with the League of Nations Mandate created after the First World War when the Ottoman Empire was apportioned by the Treaty of Sèvres. In Article 25 of the Mandate, the Emirate of Transjordan (1921-1946), was British-controlled territory, under the Mandate.

Specific to our discussion, the Mandate of Palestine comprised territory that now consists of modern-day Jordan , Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Paulet-Newcombe Line, also known as the Franco-British Boundary Agreements, were a sequence of agreements signed between 1920-23 between the British and French governments regarding the position and nature of the boundary between the Mandates of Palestine and Mesopotamia, attributed to Great Britain, and the Mandate of Syria and the Lebanon, attributed to France. The agreements fixed the line of the Syrian-Palestinian border (now the Syrian-Israeli border) between the Mediterranean Sea and the town of Al-Hamma.[1]The agreement takes its name from French Lieutenant Colonel N. Paulet and British Lieutenant Colonel S. F. Newcombe, who were appointed to lead the Boundary Commission.

The boundary between the forthcoming British and French mandates was defined in broad terms in the 1920 "Franco-British Convention on Certain Points Connected with the Mandates for Syria and the Lebanon, Palestine and Mesopotamia", signed in Paris, on 23 December 1920. That agreement placed the bulk of the Golan Heights in the French sphere. The treaty also established a joint commission to settle the precise details of the border and mark it on the ground.[3]

The commission submitted its final report on 3 February 1922, which included a number of amendments. It was approved with some caveats by the French and British governments on 7 March 1923, several months before Britain and France assumed their Mandatory responsibilities on 29 September 1923.
SOURCE: Wiki Paulet–Newcombe_Agreement

View attachment 71469​

Approximately (≈) 76%-77% of the Mandate (for protectorate reasons) called Transjordan --- was given to the Emir Abdullah by the British [territory East of the Jordan River and extending to Mesopotamia (present day Iraq)]. At the time the first Palestine Order in Council was published, the definition was:

View attachment 71471​

The phrase, "the territories to which the Mandate applies" (or variations thereof) flow directly from the definition published in the Palestine Order in Council.

Again, this is that territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.

You keep using this term to confuse people. You know that the Mandate was merely a temporarily appointed administration. It had no territory or borders.

(COMMENT)

Yes it is true that a Mandate (itself) is an order from authority (legal commission for the administration), or a politically recognized commission; however, every order, mandate, or commission has its limitations -- with the question of: to what does it apply? The limit of the Mandate for Palestine was a territorial boundary --- in 1922 (when the Palestine Order in Council was written), the nomenclature for the territory was derivative from the Treaty of Sevres:

SECTION VII --- SYRIA, MESOPOTAMIA, PALESTINE.
ARTICLE 95.

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.
​

(CENTRAL POINT)

There is an argument to be made that the San Remo Peace Conference (and the adoption of the Balfour Declaration) was the pivotal point in the creation of an associated territory --- and an Administration for that territory. Although the Supreme Council did not have a clear set of boundaries established yet, they were confident that they could work with an approximation until a Joint Boundary Survey could hammer-out the lines. Hence, the phrase, "the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them" was put into use. Of course --- this was later established by Colonels Paulette and Newman. And it was at that point the, the adoption of the 1923 Paulette-Newman Agreement that the first real steps towards the establishment of the Jewish National Home was begun.

A theme to this central point is the idea that in they would erect a right for the Jewish People (worldwide) to gain refuge in their homeland; a place that they could control and protect against the excesses of the so many that used the color of law to exploit the Jewish People. While today much of the original intent to protect and preserve the Jewish People and their culture has faded and ceased to exist; all the rights of the Jewish People that were derived from the linage of the Balfour Declaration and onward remained in full force. And this included what was to become known as the "right of self-determination."

Just as, at the time the Mandates were created, the applicable phrase was "former territories of the Ottoman Empire," so it became after the termination of the British Mandate, "former territories to which the Mandate Applied." And this phrase became popular by the post-1948 War Arabs of Palestine (within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers) to which they lay claim.

"The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense." (The Arab League -- Arab Higher Committee) Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

So, what part of all this refutes my post?

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh no, I don't think it is confusing at all.

When you say: "You know that the Mandate was merely a temporarily appointed administration. It had no territory or borders." you are implying that there were no specific territorial limits associated with the League of Nations Mandate created after the First World War when the Ottoman Empire was apportioned by the Treaty of Sèvres. In Article 25 of the Mandate, the Emirate of Transjordan (1921-1946), was British-controlled territory, under the Mandate.

Specific to our discussion, the Mandate of Palestine comprised territory that now consists of modern-day Jordan , Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Paulet-Newcombe Line, also known as the Franco-British Boundary Agreements, were a sequence of agreements signed between 1920-23 between the British and French governments regarding the position and nature of the boundary between the Mandates of Palestine and Mesopotamia, attributed to Great Britain, and the Mandate of Syria and the Lebanon, attributed to France. The agreements fixed the line of the Syrian-Palestinian border (now the Syrian-Israeli border) between the Mediterranean Sea and the town of Al-Hamma.[1]The agreement takes its name from French Lieutenant Colonel N. Paulet and British Lieutenant Colonel S. F. Newcombe, who were appointed to lead the Boundary Commission.

The boundary between the forthcoming British and French mandates was defined in broad terms in the 1920 "Franco-British Convention on Certain Points Connected with the Mandates for Syria and the Lebanon, Palestine and Mesopotamia", signed in Paris, on 23 December 1920. That agreement placed the bulk of the Golan Heights in the French sphere. The treaty also established a joint commission to settle the precise details of the border and mark it on the ground.[3]

The commission submitted its final report on 3 February 1922, which included a number of amendments. It was approved with some caveats by the French and British governments on 7 March 1923, several months before Britain and France assumed their Mandatory responsibilities on 29 September 1923.
SOURCE: Wiki Paulet–Newcombe_Agreement

View attachment 71469​

Approximately (≈) 76%-77% of the Mandate (for protectorate reasons) called Transjordan --- was given to the Emir Abdullah by the British [territory East of the Jordan River and extending to Mesopotamia (present day Iraq)]. At the time the first Palestine Order in Council was published, the definition was:

View attachment 71471​

The phrase, "the territories to which the Mandate applies" (or variations thereof) flow directly from the definition published in the Palestine Order in Council.

Again, this is that territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine.

You keep using this term to confuse people. You know that the Mandate was merely a temporarily appointed administration. It had no territory or borders.

(COMMENT)

Yes it is true that a Mandate (itself) is an order from authority (legal commission for the administration), or a politically recognized commission; however, every order, mandate, or commission has its limitations -- with the question of: to what does it apply? The limit of the Mandate for Palestine was a territorial boundary --- in 1922 (when the Palestine Order in Council was written), the nomenclature for the territory was derivative from the Treaty of Sevres:

SECTION VII --- SYRIA, MESOPOTAMIA, PALESTINE.
ARTICLE 95.

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.
​

(CENTRAL POINT)

There is an argument to be made that the San Remo Peace Conference (and the adoption of the Balfour Declaration) was the pivotal point in the creation of an associated territory --- and an Administration for that territory. Although the Supreme Council did not have a clear set of boundaries established yet, they were confident that they could work with an approximation until a Joint Boundary Survey could hammer-out the lines. Hence, the phrase, "the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them" was put into use. Of course --- this was later established by Colonels Paulette and Newman. And it was at that point the, the adoption of the 1923 Paulette-Newman Agreement that the first real steps towards the establishment of the Jewish National Home was begun.

A theme to this central point is the idea that in they would erect a right for the Jewish People (worldwide) to gain refuge in their homeland; a place that they could control and protect against the excesses of the so many that used the color of law to exploit the Jewish People. While today much of the original intent to protect and preserve the Jewish People and their culture has faded and ceased to exist; all the rights of the Jewish People that were derived from the linage of the Balfour Declaration and onward remained in full force. And this included what was to become known as the "right of self-determination."

Just as, at the time the Mandates were created, the applicable phrase was "former territories of the Ottoman Empire," so it became after the termination of the British Mandate, "former territories to which the Mandate Applied." And this phrase became popular by the post-1948 War Arabs of Palestine (within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers) to which they lay claim.

"The Arabs of Palestine consider that any attempt by the Jews or any power group of powers to establish a Jewish state in Arab territory is an act of aggression which will be resisted in self-defense." (The Arab League -- Arab Higher Committee) Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

So, what part of all this refutes my post?

ALL OF IT AND EVERY POST YOU ARE LIABLE TO MAKE OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS. IT SHOWS THAT YOU ARE JUST MUD FLINGING AND INCITING HOPING TO GET OTHER PEOPLE KICKED OF THE BOARD.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a trick. (An intentional misdirection from the facts.)

So, what part of all this refutes my post?

(COMMENT)

You write a negative comment: "You know that the Mandate was merely a temporarily appointed administration. It had no territory or borders."

I write a comment back establishing a direct association between mandate and its application to a specific territory,

Then you write back, as if in automated fashion, that "Palestine Order in Council" does not refute your original comment.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a trick. (An intentional misdirection from the facts.)

So, what part of all this refutes my post?

(COMMENT)

You write a negative comment: "You know that the Mandate was merely a temporarily appointed administration. It had no territory or borders."

I write a comment back establishing a direct association between mandate and its application to a specific territory,

Then you write back, as if in automated fashion, that "Palestine Order in Council" does not refute your original comment.

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course it had a specific territory. It was assigned to Palestine so obviously it operated inside Palestinian territory.

That does not refute my post.

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is a trick. (An intentional misdirection from the facts.)

So, what part of all this refutes my post?

(COMMENT)

You write a negative comment: "You know that the Mandate was merely a temporarily appointed administration. It had no territory or borders."

I write a comment back establishing a direct association between mandate and its application to a specific territory,

Then you write back, as if in automated fashion, that "Palestine Order in Council" does not refute your original comment.

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course it had a specific territory. It was assigned to Palestine so obviously it operated inside Palestinian territory.

That does not refute my post.

So the fact that the reply shows that the mandate defined and delineated the borders of the mandate of Palestine, And then points to the actual mandate itself that reiterates the fact that the mandate defines the borders as those the LoN see fit to apply destroys your stupidity and tears apart your post. The fact that you cant abide being proven wrong every time you post is getting to you and now you are ignoring the evidence placed in front of you.

Even the birds in the sky refute your post

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh ---WOW!

Of course it had a specific territory. It was assigned to Palestine so obviously it operated inside Palestinian territory.
That does not refute my post.

(QUESTIONS)

• When you say the Mandate was assigned to Palestine, exactly where was this place (that you are referring to and) called Palestine?
• Under what sovereign authority was this Palestine?
• What are the boundaries of "inside Palestinian territory?"

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Oh ---WOW!

Of course it had a specific territory. It was assigned to Palestine so obviously it operated inside Palestinian territory.
That does not refute my post.

(QUESTIONS)

• When you say the Mandate was assigned to Palestine, exactly where was this place (that you are referring to and) called Palestine?
• Under what sovereign authority was this Palestine?
• What are the boundaries of "inside Palestinian territory?"

Most Respectfully,
R

You're joking, right?