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

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This thought gets more embellished the more I hear it repeated.

​

: International Law: Acquisition of Territorial Sovereignty]
Annexation means to incorporate (territory) into the domain of a country. Annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized by one state. It can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism. e.g 1961 annexation of Goa. Annexation of Golan Heights by Israel in 1967.

In 1967, Israel captured East Jerusalem which Jordan had annexed in 1950. In 1980, Israel made the critical decision. Subsequently in 1988, Jordan severed all connections with the West Bank and Jerusalem. This issue is unresolved at the international level. Customarily, and under the Treaty of Westphalia, a territory under the effective control of Israel, --- that is not under the authority of any other state (Jordan having withdrawn), then Israel can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation.​

What means of acquiring territory did Israel use in 1948?

BTW, I thought it was illegal to annex occupied territory.

(REFERENCE)

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
INVIOLABILITY OF RIGHTS

ARTICLE 47

Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory.​

(COMMENT)

For the ump-teenth time: Israel used the "Right of Self-determination" (Chapter I, Article 1(2), UN Charter) and the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" to declare the State of Israel.

Well, actually, there is no UN Prohibition by Charter on the "Annexation" of territory under any given situation. There are several references to "Acts of Aggression" (starting a war), but no true limitation on annexation.

Now I've heard any number of pro-Palestinians cite Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention as an authority. And it is true, that the GCIV does have a proscription. But the proscription is to prevent the Occupier from denying the "protected persons" some right (as in the title: Inviolability of Rights). HOWEVER, in 1967, when the Israelis "occupied the West Bank," it was the sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom (not the protected people). In 1967, the injured parties were Egypt and Jordan. Both injuries were resolved by Peace Treaty.

Most Respectfully,
R

HOWEVER, in 1967, when the Israelis "occupied the West Bank," it was the sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom (not the protected people).
-----------------------
These rules underline the basic concern of the law of occupation, which is to maintain the status quo ante (i.e. as it was before) in the occupied territory as far as is practically possible. This makes sense. The annexation of conquered territory is prohibited by international law. This necessarily means that if one State achieves power over parts of another State’s territory by force or threat of force, the situation must be considered temporary by international law.
---------------------------
BTW, this is the question you ducked.

What means of acquiring territory did Israel use in 1948?

No he gave the answer, which you ducked because it means International law was once again on the side of the Jews

 

[RoccoR]

"P F Tinmore, et al,

This is circular whining. You ask and ask and ask this question, and still you fail to read the answer.

BTW, this is the question you ducked.

What means of acquiring territory did Israel use in 1948?

(COMMENT and the Dogged Answer)

The question was answer twice. Once in Posting # 810, and once in Posting # 828.

The means was:

• Self-Determination as previously posted; through both the:

• Declarative Process
• Constitutive Process
​

• Following the "Steps Preparatory to Independence"
• Success in the Military Defense of the Nation against Arab League Aggressors.
​

All of these "means" have been discussed numerous times, by multiple people,

(UNDERSTANDING)

But just mouthing the words means nothing if you don't understand these phrases of description.

In any "determinist" view (as in self-determination - wherein the inhabitants determine their own statehood and forms its own allegiances and government) has an element in common: "A philosophical position that for every event, including human interactions, there exist conditions that could cause no other event. The "Declaration of Independence for the Jewish State of Israel," is the resulting outcome in the alignment of this set of conditions. "There are many determinisms, depending on what pre-conditions are considered to be determinative of an event or action." (Determinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) The history of the State of Israel - with the Faisal-Wiesman Agreement, the Balfour Declaration, the Armistice of Mudros, the San Remo Convention, the Treaty of Sevres, the Palestine Order in Council, Mandate for Palestine, the Arab Riots, the Palestinian Black Hand, the recommendations of the UNSCOP, and the adoption of UN Resolution 181(II), and the Civil War between the Arab and Jewish Peoples, set that polarization of the two peoples, serially coming together to set those conditions in which the only possible outcome is what we have today. It could have been no other than a Jewish State of Israel; there being no other possible outcome. When we use these words to describe a "right" of the people, this right of self-determination to set their own destiny --- what we are saying is that the events that were so necessary before a certain outcome could happen to people to forge a particular future, has come together.

(REMEMBER)

This is what was meant when the Allied Powers wrote Article 16 of the Lausanne Treaty and the phrase: "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

The "parties concerned" were required to settle the future of those territories pursuant to the terms of the Covenant of the League of Nations, particularly Article 22. How was the well-being and development of 95% of the inhabitants maintained as a sacred trust of civilization by the British?

"ARTICLE 22.

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.

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

 

[Phoenall]

The "parties concerned" were required to settle the future of those territories pursuant to the terms of the Covenant of the League of Nations, particularly Article 22. How was the well-being and development of 95% of the inhabitants maintained as a sacred trust of civilization by the British?

"ARTICLE 22.

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.

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

And as your link that you rely on states the article does not apply in this case. Just admit that you have it wrong

 

[P F Tinmore]

"P F Tinmore, et al,

This is circular whining. You ask and ask and ask this question, and still you fail to read the answer.

BTW, this is the question you ducked.

What means of acquiring territory did Israel use in 1948?

(COMMENT and the Dogged Answer)

The question was answer twice. Once in Posting # 810, and once in Posting # 828.

The means was:

• Self-Determination as previously posted; through both the:

• Declarative Process
• Constitutive Process
​

• Following the "Steps Preparatory to Independence"
• Success in the Military Defense of the Nation against Arab League Aggressors.​

All of these "means" have been discussed numerous times, by multiple people,

(UNDERSTANDING)

But just mouthing the words means nothing if you don't understand these phrases of description.

In any "determinist" view (as in self-determination - wherein the inhabitants determine their own statehood and forms its own allegiances and government) has an element in common: "A philosophical position that for every event, including human interactions, there exist conditions that could cause no other event. The "Declaration of Independence for the Jewish State of Israel," is the resulting outcome in the alignment of this set of conditions. "There are many determinisms, depending on what pre-conditions are considered to be determinative of an event or action." (Determinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) The history of the State of Israel - with the Faisal-Wiesman Agreement, the Balfour Declaration, the Armistice of Mudros, the San Remo Convention, the Treaty of Sevres, the Palestine Order in Council, Mandate for Palestine, the Arab Riots, the Palestinian Black Hand, the recommendations of the UNSCOP, and the adoption of UN Resolution 181(II), and the Civil War between the Arab and Jewish Peoples, set that polarization of the two peoples, serially coming together to set those conditions in which the only possible outcome is what we have today. It could have been no other than a Jewish State of Israel; there being no other possible outcome. When we use these words to describe a "right" of the people, this right of self-determination to set their own destiny --- what we are saying is that the events that were so necessary before a certain outcome could happen to people to forge a particular future, has come together.

(REMEMBER)

This is what was meant when the Allied Powers wrote Article 16 of the Lausanne Treaty and the phrase: "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."

Most Respectfully,
R

From your link.

determination by the people of a territorial unit of their own future political status​

The Palestinians were the people of the place by international law and the Treaty of Lausanne upon the signing of that treaty. This was affirmed by the Palestinian citizenship order of 1925. Anything imposed on them against their will after that was a violation of their right to self determination.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Well, it is a decent argument, if only it was accurate. The common mistake here is that the "parties concerned" for the purposes of the Treaty of Lausanne where the individual signatories to the Treaty on the part of the Allied Powers.

Second: The primary obligations of the Mandatory Power were clearly defined in Article 2 of the Mandate, which reads as follows:

“The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH), as laid down in the Mandate Preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”

--------------------------------- AND ---------------------------------
From the Preamble to the Mandate for Palestine​

“Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country”.
​

The Third most common error is binary in nature:

• The Treaty of Lausanne does NOT directly obligate or tie the Allied Powers and signatories to the League of Nations (LoN) Covenant or any Covenant requirement. The Covenant is not mentioned once in the Treaty.
• There is no direct tie or obligation that existed between Treaty of Lausanne and the Mandate for Palestine. The territory for which the Mandate of Palestine applied is not mentioned once in the Treaty of Lausanne.
​

The Fourth misunderstanding between on the subject matter is that Article 2 of the Mandate assigned equal weight and importance to three obligations pertaining to the "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine:"

• The creation of conditions which would secure the establishment of the JNH;
• The creation of conditions which would secure the development of self-governing institutions;
• The safeguarding of the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants.
​

The Fifth and final observation is that the LoN Covenant, the Mandate for Palestine, and the Treaty of Lausanne give not weight or importance to the "right of self-determination." There is nothing in the LoN Covenant that obligates the Council of the LoN, the Allied Powers in general, or the Mandatory specifically to the establishment of an Arab State.

Article 22 --- The LoN Covenant

• Article 22(1) Does not set a tangible obligations on the Allied Powers or the Mandatory.
• Article 22(2) Only applies to inhabitance who are willing to accept tutelage advanced nations.
• Article 22(3) The character of the Mandate for Palestine was NOT exclusively set to the stage of the development of the Arab inhabitants, and does not act in prejudice of the Jewish immigrant. The geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances are not fixed. It obligates no specific boundaries dictated and no specific obligation rendered to any specific community.
• Article 22(4) Only applies to "Certain communities" formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire, but not necessarily all communities. Palestine is not specified as in the zone for consideration as an independent nation that can be provisionally recognized.
• Article 22(5) Only applies to Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa.
• Article 22(6) Only applies to territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands.
• Article 22(7) Obligates the Mandatory to render an annual report in reference to the territory committed to its charge.
• Article 22(8) Binds the Mandatory to a span of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.
• Article 22(9) Establishes the relationship between the Mandatory and the LoN Permanent Commission (LoNPC) and the reporting chain.
​

The "parties concerned" were required to settle the future of those territories pursuant to the terms of the Covenant of the League of Nations, particularly Article 22. How was the well-being and development of 95% of the inhabitants maintained as a sacred trust of civilization by the British?

"ARTICLE 22.

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.

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

(COMMENT)

There is nothing in the LoN Covenant that directly obligates the Council, the Allied Powers, the LoNPC or the Mandatory to a commitment to any Arab Community; let alone an Arab Palestinian community. There is no specific instruction as to the allocation or territorial requirement for any Arab Political Subdivision. In point of fact, Article 22(3) could equally apply to the Jewish Immigrant community, as it is assumed that it might apply to an unidentified Arab Community. Nothing in Article 22 is specifically or uniquely applicable to only an Arab Community.

Most Respectfully,
R​

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well I just gave an extensive answer to "montelatici," on a subject very close to this.

determination by the people of a territorial unit of their own future political status

The Palestinians were the people of the place by international law and the Treaty of Lausanne upon the signing of that treaty. This was affirmed by the Palestinian citizenship order of 1925. Anything imposed on them against their will after that was a violation of their right to self determination.

(COMMENT)

You cannot physically violate the right of self-determination. You have it. You may or may not be able to exercise it, but whatever the case, all humans has a right, collective they have the right as a people.

The citizenship law of 1925 (as amended) has absolutely nothing to do with sovereignty or independence. In fact the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Law was covering citizens of the Mandate Government and never actually applied to any sovereignty outside the territory to which the Mandate applied.

Palestinians were never mentioned or specifically addressed in the Treaty of Lausanne. The treaty allied to all the Mandates of the former Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well I just gave an extensive answer to "montelatici," on a subject very close to this.

determination by the people of a territorial unit of their own future political status

The Palestinians were the people of the place by international law and the Treaty of Lausanne upon the signing of that treaty. This was affirmed by the Palestinian citizenship order of 1925. Anything imposed on them against their will after that was a violation of their right to self determination.

(COMMENT)

You cannot physically violate the right of self-determination. You have it. You may or may not be able to exercise it, but whatever the case, all humans has a right, collective they have the right as a people.

The citizenship law of 1925 (as amended) has absolutely nothing to do with sovereignty or independence. In fact the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Law was covering citizens of the Mandate Government and never actually applied to any sovereignty outside the territory to which the Mandate applied.

Palestinians were never mentioned or specifically addressed in the Treaty of Lausanne. The treaty allied to all the Mandates of the former Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.

Most Respectfully,
R

You cannot physically violate the right of self-determination. You have it. You may or may not be able to exercise it, but whatever the case, all humans has a right, collective they have the right as a people.​

Indeed, and preventing people from exercising their right to self determination usually requires some form of military aggression which is illegal. That would be illegal external interference.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

In the role of a Government, the lowest common denomination, in the positive direction, to the "right of self-determination" is (=) freedom. And this is the hard part to understand. Throughout history, there have been many many cultures and various populations that supported Totalitarian Regimes, Absolute monarchy (a government where the monarch rules unhindered, i.e., without any laws, constitution or legally organized opposition), Authoritarian (a government in which state authority is imposed onto many aspects of citizens' lives), governments administered by a religious leadership, government in which control is exercised by a small group of individuals whose authority generally is based on wealth or power etc, etc, The people, of these various types of government, have the right of self-determination; but, by the same token those governments have the right to defend against the exercise of that right of self-determination which can be viewed as treason and insurrection. In fact, there are some coup d'état that only succeeded in the replacement of one totalitarian regime with something even worse.

When the ancient Greeks invented a system of society called democracy to protect their freedom, that was a form of self-determination. When the Bolsheviks murdered the Royal Family in Czarist Russia, that was a form of self-determination. When the citizens of Germany replaced the Weimar Republic with the NAZI --- that too was an example of self-determination. The exercise of self-determination may lead to the loss of the right of self-determination, as in these examples. The unrestrained "right to self-determination" is to order its own demise; you have to order the death to the freedom you love.

You cannot physically violate the right of self-determination. You have it. You may or may not be able to exercise it, but whatever the case, all humans has a right, collective they have the right as a people.

Indeed, and preventing people from exercising their right to self determination usually requires some form of military aggression which is illegal. That would be illegal external interference.

(COMMENT)

When the cure is worse than the disease, then the exercise is fatal (in political terms, the failed state emerges). Now some people say that, none the less, the people have that right of self-determination (the view held by the pro-Palestinian faction). And the opposing view to that is, there is no absolute right to commit suicide. The best example of this in modern times is DAESH (ISIS), is an example of the culture promoting a radical Islamic Caliphate (a single dictatorship under a one-world government). And once the radicalist exercise their right to self-determination, the resultant outcome is a government that no longer tolerates self-determination. You've heard of this before; it is called political suicide.

The political concept of self-determination initially sounds patriotic and progressive; but it can prove so very deadly. The 20th Century was an historic period in which so many disasters befell the world.

• 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
• 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese
• 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
• 5,964,000 Murdered: Japanese Co-prospearity Sphere
• 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

Well, it is a decent argument, if only it was accurate. The common mistake here is that the "parties concerned" for the purposes of the Treaty of Lausanne where the individual signatories to the Treaty on the part of the Allied Powers.

Second: The primary obligations of the Mandatory Power were clearly defined in Article 2 of the Mandate, which reads as follows:

“The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH), as laid down in the Mandate Preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”

--------------------------------- AND ---------------------------------
From the Preamble to the Mandate for Palestine​

“Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country”.
​

The Third most common error is binary in nature:

• The Treaty of Lausanne does NOT directly obligate or tie the Allied Powers and signatories to the League of Nations (LoN) Covenant or any Covenant requirement. The Covenant is not mentioned once in the Treaty.
• There is no direct tie or obligation that existed between Treaty of Lausanne and the Mandate for Palestine. The territory for which the Mandate of Palestine applied is not mentioned once in the Treaty of Lausanne.
​

The Fourth misunderstanding between on the subject matter is that Article 2 of the Mandate assigned equal weight and importance to three obligations pertaining to the "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine:"

• The creation of conditions which would secure the establishment of the JNH;
• The creation of conditions which would secure the development of self-governing institutions;
• The safeguarding of the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants.
​

The Fifth and final observation is that the LoN Covenant, the Mandate for Palestine, and the Treaty of Lausanne give not weight or importance to the "right of self-determination." There is nothing in the LoN Covenant that obligates the Council of the LoN, the Allied Powers in general, or the Mandatory specifically to the establishment of an Arab State.

Article 22 --- The LoN Covenant

• Article 22(1) Does not set a tangible obligations on the Allied Powers or the Mandatory.
• Article 22(2) Only applies to inhabitance who are willing to accept tutelage advanced nations.
• Article 22(3) The character of the Mandate for Palestine was NOT exclusively set to the stage of the development of the Arab inhabitants, and does not act in prejudice of the Jewish immigrant. The geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances are not fixed. It obligates no specific boundaries dictated and no specific obligation rendered to any specific community.
• Article 22(4) Only applies to "Certain communities" formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire, but not necessarily all communities. Palestine is not specified as in the zone for consideration as an independent nation that can be provisionally recognized.
• Article 22(5) Only applies to Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa.
• Article 22(6) Only applies to territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands.
• Article 22(7) Obligates the Mandatory to render an annual report in reference to the territory committed to its charge.
• Article 22(8) Binds the Mandatory to a span of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.
• Article 22(9) Establishes the relationship between the Mandatory and the LoN Permanent Commission (LoNPC) and the reporting chain.
​

The "parties concerned" were required to settle the future of those territories pursuant to the terms of the Covenant of the League of Nations, particularly Article 22. How was the well-being and development of 95% of the inhabitants maintained as a sacred trust of civilization by the British?

"ARTICLE 22.

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.

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

(COMMENT)

There is nothing in the LoN Covenant that directly obligates the Council, the Allied Powers, the LoNPC or the Mandatory to a commitment to any Arab Community; let alone an Arab Palestinian community. There is no specific instruction as to the allocation or territorial requirement for any Arab Political Subdivision. In point of fact, Article 22(3) could equally apply to the Jewish Immigrant community, as it is assumed that it might apply to an unidentified Arab Community. Nothing in Article 22 is specifically or uniquely applicable to only an Arab Community.

Most Respectfully,
R​

The commitment was to the inhabitants, and when the LON Covenant was signed 95% of the people in Palestine were Muslims and Christians. Transferring Europeans to Palestine subsequently, certainly did not safeguard the civil rights of said inhabitants. It did quite the opposite.

 

[Phoenall]

"P F Tinmore, et al,

This is circular whining. You ask and ask and ask this question, and still you fail to read the answer.

BTW, this is the question you ducked.

What means of acquiring territory did Israel use in 1948?

(COMMENT and the Dogged Answer)

The question was answer twice. Once in Posting # 810, and once in Posting # 828.

The means was:

• Self-Determination as previously posted; through both the:

• Declarative Process
• Constitutive Process
​

• Following the "Steps Preparatory to Independence"
• Success in the Military Defense of the Nation against Arab League Aggressors.​

All of these "means" have been discussed numerous times, by multiple people,

(UNDERSTANDING)

But just mouthing the words means nothing if you don't understand these phrases of description.

In any "determinist" view (as in self-determination - wherein the inhabitants determine their own statehood and forms its own allegiances and government) has an element in common: "A philosophical position that for every event, including human interactions, there exist conditions that could cause no other event. The "Declaration of Independence for the Jewish State of Israel," is the resulting outcome in the alignment of this set of conditions. "There are many determinisms, depending on what pre-conditions are considered to be determinative of an event or action." (Determinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) The history of the State of Israel - with the Faisal-Wiesman Agreement, the Balfour Declaration, the Armistice of Mudros, the San Remo Convention, the Treaty of Sevres, the Palestine Order in Council, Mandate for Palestine, the Arab Riots, the Palestinian Black Hand, the recommendations of the UNSCOP, and the adoption of UN Resolution 181(II), and the Civil War between the Arab and Jewish Peoples, set that polarization of the two peoples, serially coming together to set those conditions in which the only possible outcome is what we have today. It could have been no other than a Jewish State of Israel; there being no other possible outcome. When we use these words to describe a "right" of the people, this right of self-determination to set their own destiny --- what we are saying is that the events that were so necessary before a certain outcome could happen to people to forge a particular future, has come together.

(REMEMBER)

This is what was meant when the Allied Powers wrote Article 16 of the Lausanne Treaty and the phrase: "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."

Most Respectfully,
R

From your link.

determination by the people of a territorial unit of their own future political status​

The Palestinians were the people of the place by international law and the Treaty of Lausanne upon the signing of that treaty. This was affirmed by the Palestinian citizenship order of 1925. Anything imposed on them against their will after that was a violation of their right to self determination.

Cherry picking little pieces does not prove your POV, it just shows that you are grasping at straws because you are losing the argument.


As you have been shown hundreds of times in the past Palestine was never mentioned in the Treaty of Lausanne so how can it say what you claim. The citizenship order was to give the Jews the ability to become Palestinian citizens, and it did not apply to any arab muslim illegal immigrants.

WRONG AGAIN as enforcing the rule of law on them cant be a violation of their right to self determination, and at that period in time there was no such thing as a right to self determination.

 

[Phoenall]

"P F Tinmore, et al,

This is circular whining. You ask and ask and ask this question, and still you fail to read the answer.

BTW, this is the question you ducked.

What means of acquiring territory did Israel use in 1948?

(COMMENT and the Dogged Answer)

The question was answer twice. Once in Posting # 810, and once in Posting # 828.

The means was:

• Self-Determination as previously posted; through both the:

• Declarative Process
• Constitutive Process
​

• Following the "Steps Preparatory to Independence"
• Success in the Military Defense of the Nation against Arab League Aggressors.​

All of these "means" have been discussed numerous times, by multiple people,

(UNDERSTANDING)

But just mouthing the words means nothing if you don't understand these phrases of description.

In any "determinist" view (as in self-determination - wherein the inhabitants determine their own statehood and forms its own allegiances and government) has an element in common: "A philosophical position that for every event, including human interactions, there exist conditions that could cause no other event. The "Declaration of Independence for the Jewish State of Israel," is the resulting outcome in the alignment of this set of conditions. "There are many determinisms, depending on what pre-conditions are considered to be determinative of an event or action." (Determinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) The history of the State of Israel - with the Faisal-Wiesman Agreement, the Balfour Declaration, the Armistice of Mudros, the San Remo Convention, the Treaty of Sevres, the Palestine Order in Council, Mandate for Palestine, the Arab Riots, the Palestinian Black Hand, the recommendations of the UNSCOP, and the adoption of UN Resolution 181(II), and the Civil War between the Arab and Jewish Peoples, set that polarization of the two peoples, serially coming together to set those conditions in which the only possible outcome is what we have today. It could have been no other than a Jewish State of Israel; there being no other possible outcome. When we use these words to describe a "right" of the people, this right of self-determination to set their own destiny --- what we are saying is that the events that were so necessary before a certain outcome could happen to people to forge a particular future, has come together.

(REMEMBER)

This is what was meant when the Allied Powers wrote Article 16 of the Lausanne Treaty and the phrase: "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."

Most Respectfully,
R

From your link.

determination by the people of a territorial unit of their own future political status​

The Palestinians were the people of the place by international law and the Treaty of Lausanne upon the signing of that treaty. This was affirmed by the Palestinian citizenship order of 1925. Anything imposed on them against their will after that was a violation of their right to self determination.

Cherry picking little pieces does not prove your POV, it just shows that you are grasping at straws because you are losing the argument.


As you have been shown hundreds of times in the past Palestine was never mentioned in the Treaty of Lausanne so how can it say what you claim. The citizenship order was to give the Jews the ability to become Palestinian citizens, and it did not apply to any arab muslim illegal immigrants.

WRONG AGAIN as enforcing the rule of law on them cant be a violation of their right to self determination, and at that period in time there was no such thing as a right to self determination.

SO STOP TRYING TO USE INTERNATIONAL LAWS RETROSPECTIVELY UNLESS YOU WANT THEM TO BE USED AGAINST YOU

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Well I just gave an extensive answer to "montelatici," on a subject very close to this.

determination by the people of a territorial unit of their own future political status

The Palestinians were the people of the place by international law and the Treaty of Lausanne upon the signing of that treaty. This was affirmed by the Palestinian citizenship order of 1925. Anything imposed on them against their will after that was a violation of their right to self determination.

(COMMENT)

You cannot physically violate the right of self-determination. You have it. You may or may not be able to exercise it, but whatever the case, all humans has a right, collective they have the right as a people.

The citizenship law of 1925 (as amended) has absolutely nothing to do with sovereignty or independence. In fact the 1925 Palestinian Citizenship Law was covering citizens of the Mandate Government and never actually applied to any sovereignty outside the territory to which the Mandate applied.

Palestinians were never mentioned or specifically addressed in the Treaty of Lausanne. The treaty allied to all the Mandates of the former Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.

Most Respectfully,
R

You cannot physically violate the right of self-determination. You have it. You may or may not be able to exercise it, but whatever the case, all humans has a right, collective they have the right as a people.​

Indeed, and preventing people from exercising their right to self determination usually requires some form of military aggression which is illegal. That would be illegal external interference.

Cant you read English, are you that stupid that you don't understand what is being said.

YOU CANT VIOLATE A PERSONS RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION, NO EVEN BY FORCE.

It is that simple, and you are trying to make it as hard as possible when you allow your Jew hatred to cloud your thought process. How can military aggression from thinking about wanting a drink of water ? That is self determination, as is firing illegal weapons that have been called war crimes.

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

Well, it is a decent argument, if only it was accurate. The common mistake here is that the "parties concerned" for the purposes of the Treaty of Lausanne where the individual signatories to the Treaty on the part of the Allied Powers.

Second: The primary obligations of the Mandatory Power were clearly defined in Article 2 of the Mandate, which reads as follows:

“The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home (JNH), as laid down in the Mandate Preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.”

--------------------------------- AND ---------------------------------
From the Preamble to the Mandate for Palestine​

“Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country”.
​

The Third most common error is binary in nature:

• The Treaty of Lausanne does NOT directly obligate or tie the Allied Powers and signatories to the League of Nations (LoN) Covenant or any Covenant requirement. The Covenant is not mentioned once in the Treaty.
• There is no direct tie or obligation that existed between Treaty of Lausanne and the Mandate for Palestine. The territory for which the Mandate of Palestine applied is not mentioned once in the Treaty of Lausanne.
​

The Fourth misunderstanding between on the subject matter is that Article 2 of the Mandate assigned equal weight and importance to three obligations pertaining to the "territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applies, hereinafter described as Palestine:"

• The creation of conditions which would secure the establishment of the JNH;
• The creation of conditions which would secure the development of self-governing institutions;
• The safeguarding of the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants.
​

The Fifth and final observation is that the LoN Covenant, the Mandate for Palestine, and the Treaty of Lausanne give not weight or importance to the "right of self-determination." There is nothing in the LoN Covenant that obligates the Council of the LoN, the Allied Powers in general, or the Mandatory specifically to the establishment of an Arab State.

Article 22 --- The LoN Covenant

• Article 22(1) Does not set a tangible obligations on the Allied Powers or the Mandatory.
• Article 22(2) Only applies to inhabitance who are willing to accept tutelage advanced nations.
• Article 22(3) The character of the Mandate for Palestine was NOT exclusively set to the stage of the development of the Arab inhabitants, and does not act in prejudice of the Jewish immigrant. The geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances are not fixed. It obligates no specific boundaries dictated and no specific obligation rendered to any specific community.
• Article 22(4) Only applies to "Certain communities" formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire, but not necessarily all communities. Palestine is not specified as in the zone for consideration as an independent nation that can be provisionally recognized.
• Article 22(5) Only applies to Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa.
• Article 22(6) Only applies to territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands.
• Article 22(7) Obligates the Mandatory to render an annual report in reference to the territory committed to its charge.
• Article 22(8) Binds the Mandatory to a span of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.
• Article 22(9) Establishes the relationship between the Mandatory and the LoN Permanent Commission (LoNPC) and the reporting chain.
​

The "parties concerned" were required to settle the future of those territories pursuant to the terms of the Covenant of the League of Nations, particularly Article 22. How was the well-being and development of 95% of the inhabitants maintained as a sacred trust of civilization by the British?

"ARTICLE 22.

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.

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

(COMMENT)

There is nothing in the LoN Covenant that directly obligates the Council, the Allied Powers, the LoNPC or the Mandatory to a commitment to any Arab Community; let alone an Arab Palestinian community. There is no specific instruction as to the allocation or territorial requirement for any Arab Political Subdivision. In point of fact, Article 22(3) could equally apply to the Jewish Immigrant community, as it is assumed that it might apply to an unidentified Arab Community. Nothing in Article 22 is specifically or uniquely applicable to only an Arab Community.

Most Respectfully,
R​

The commitment was to the inhabitants, and when the LON Covenant was signed 95% of the people in Palestine were Muslims and Christians. Transferring Europeans to Palestine subsequently, certainly did not safeguard the civil rights of said inhabitants. It did quite the opposite.

What civil rights did it not safeguard ?

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

It does not matter if 95% of the people in Palestine, were Muslims and Christians.

Q: To whom did the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic enter into the Armistice of Mudros, (Oct. 30, 1918)?

A: The pact was signed at the port of Mudros, on the Aegean island of Lemnos, between the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain (representing the Allied powers) marking the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I (1914–18).
​

Q: To whom did the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic enter into the Treaty of Sèvres, (Aug. 10, 1920), a post-World War I pact?

A: The treaty was between the victorious Allied powers and representatives of the government of Ottoman Turkey?
​

Q: To whom did the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic enter into the Treaty of Lausanne with?

A: The Allied Powers.
​

Under Article 21: Nothing in this Covenant shall be deemed to affect the validity of international engagements, such as treaties of arbitration or regional understandings like the Monroe doctrine, for securing the maintenance of peace. This included the Treaty of Peace with Turkey signed at Lausanne as an instrument to maintain peace.

The commitment was to the inhabitants, and when the LON Covenant was signed 95% of the people in Palestine were Muslims and Christians. Transferring Europeans to Palestine subsequently, certainly did not safeguard the civil rights of said inhabitants. It did quite the opposite.

(COMMENT)

Where does the League of Nations (LoN) or any Allied Power make a binding commitment to the inhabitants of the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied?

It should be noted that "Transferring Europeans to Palestine" was NEVER an objective to any Armistice, Treaty or Mandate. The LoN objective was to facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions to encourage those Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National Home.

The LoN Covenant is an agreement between the parties and not between any Arab Inhabitants in the Regional Area covered under the Syke-Picot Agreement. There was not one single Arab Power mentioned in the LoN Covenant or one single Arab signatory to the Covenant.

(QUESTIONs)

• In 1922 (plus or minus a decade), what were the international "civil rights" of the Arab inhabitants understood by the Allied Power?

• Where are the "Civil Rights" of that era codified?

• What rights of the early 20th Century Arab Palestinian, were protected in the territories to which the Mandate for Palestine applied?

• Where did the early 20th Century Arab Palestinian acquire any territorial sovereignty or independence?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

"Where does the League of Nations (LoN) or any Allied Power make a binding commitment to the inhabitants of the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied?"

In Article 22 of the LON Covenant it clearly states that:

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

Clearly, it applied to the people inhabiting Palestine even if you may claim that it also applied to people not inhabiting the former Turkish possessions.

Furthermore, in the preamble of the Mandate it also referred to Article 22, reinforcing the applicability of the Covenant's intentions to adhere to the principle of well-being and development of the inhabitants.

"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, to 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..."

In fact, there was no effort to protect and promote the well-being of the inhabitants of the former Turkish territory. Rather, there was an effort to promote the well-being and development of inhabitants of other lands and continents at the expense of the inhabitants of Palestine.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et a;,

Yes, try as you might, you are trying to apply Article 22 as if it was intended to apply soley to Arab Palestinians. Article 22 of the Covenant is NOT an obligation or agreement between the Allied Powers and the Arab Palestinians. The Arab Palestinians where not a signatory to the Covenant. There is no binding obligation between the Allied Powers and the Allied Powers. In fact, the Arabs of Palestine are not a signatory to any agreement. In point of fact, the Arab Palestinians cannot claim any attachment or obligation between the Allied Powers and the Arabs of Palestine. The Arab Higher Committee Delegation reaffirm here that the Arabs of Palestine cannot recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom. The Arabs of Palestine cannot have it both ways; on the one hand, decline recognition, and in the other make a claim that there was an obligation to be fulfilled.

"Where does the League of Nations (LoN) or any Allied Power make a binding commitment to the inhabitants of the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied?"

In Article 22 of the LON Covenant it clearly states that:

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

(COMMENT)

The phrase "well being and development of such people" presupposes that the "inhabitants" accepted the tutelage of the more advanced nations, as articulation in Article 22(2).

• A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947 Memorandum by His Britannic Majesty's Government presented in 1947 to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine:

Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people.
​

• A/AC.21/9 S/676 16 February 1948 First Special Report to the Security Council: The Problem of Security in Palestine --- Part I. MAIN CONSIDERATIONS --- Paragraph 3C and 6:

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. The Secretary-General has been informed by the Arab Higher Committee that is determined to persist in its rejection of the partition plan and in its refusal to recognize the resolution of the Assembly and “anything deriving therefrom.”
​

• This is a case where the Arabs of Palestine failed to even qualify as they were NOT "willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League. Article 22(2)

Clearly, it applied to the people inhabiting Palestine even if you may claim that it also applied to people not inhabiting the former Turkish possessions.

(COMMENT)

It does not promise anything specific to anyone specific in the region. What Article 22(4) says: "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized."

"Certain Communities" does not mean "Every Community." Where do the Allied Powers identify the Arab of Palestine as "provisionally recognized."

Remember, even today, the 1988 State of Palestine cannot demonstrate that it has "reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized." The 1988 State of Palestine is totally dependent of external donor programs to maintain its existence.​

Furthermore, in the preamble of the Mandate it also referred to Article 22, reinforcing the applicability of the Covenant's intentions to adhere to the principle of well-being and development of the inhabitants.

"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, to 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..."

In fact, there was no effort to protect and promote the well-being of the inhabitants of the former Turkish territory. Rather, there was an effort to promote the well-being and development of inhabitants of other lands and continents at the expense of the inhabitants of Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Now we have shifted gears here. Now we are talking about the "Level of Effort" versus the "Acceptance of Tutelage."The need for economic development in Palestine was emphasised, in 1930, by the Permanent mandates Commission, by Sir John Hope-Simpson and by the Government of the mandatory Power. A Director of Development was appointed in the following year, and the Arab Executive and the Jewish Agency were each invited to nominate a representative to assist him in an advisory capacity. The Arab Executive declined to accept this invitation unless the Government would agree to their condition that development should not be based on the principles embodied in the Prime Minister’s letter to Dr. Weizmann.

To this day, the Arabs of Palestine, while claiming to negotiate in good fail, have consistently demonstrated that they have no willingness to accept a peace that gives them control of the entire landscape.

Remember --- Article 22 was not written to obligate or promise anything to the Arabs of Palestine. It was an understanding between the parties to the agreement.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Phoenall]

"Where does the League of Nations (LoN) or any Allied Power make a binding commitment to the inhabitants of the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied?"

In Article 22 of the LON Covenant it clearly states that:

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

Clearly, it applied to the people inhabiting Palestine even if you may claim that it also applied to people not inhabiting the former Turkish possessions.

Furthermore, in the preamble of the Mandate it also referred to Article 22, reinforcing the applicability of the Covenant's intentions to adhere to the principle of well-being and development of the inhabitants.

"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, to 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..."

In fact, there was no effort to protect and promote the well-being of the inhabitants of the former Turkish territory. Rather, there was an effort to promote the well-being and development of inhabitants of other lands and continents at the expense of the inhabitants of Palestine.

The answer is in your cut and paste were it says


"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, to 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..."

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et a;,

Yes, try as you might, you are trying to apply Article 22 as if it was intended to apply soley to Arab Palestinians. Article 22 of the Covenant is NOT an obligation or agreement between the Allied Powers and the Arab Palestinians. The Arab Palestinians where not a signatory to the Covenant. There is no binding obligation between the Allied Powers and the Allied Powers. In fact, the Arabs of Palestine are not a signatory to any agreement. In point of fact, the Arab Palestinians cannot claim any attachment or obligation between the Allied Powers and the Arabs of Palestine. The Arab Higher Committee Delegation reaffirm here that the Arabs of Palestine cannot recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom. The Arabs of Palestine cannot have it both ways; on the one hand, decline recognition, and in the other make a claim that there was an obligation to be fulfilled.

"Where does the League of Nations (LoN) or any Allied Power make a binding commitment to the inhabitants of the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied?"

In Article 22 of the LON Covenant it clearly states that:

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

(COMMENT)

The phrase "well being and development of such people" presupposes that the "inhabitants" accepted the tutelage of the more advanced nations, as articulation in Article 22(2).

• A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947 Memorandum by His Britannic Majesty's Government presented in 1947 to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine:

Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people.
​

• A/AC.21/9 S/676 16 February 1948 First Special Report to the Security Council: The Problem of Security in Palestine --- Part I. MAIN CONSIDERATIONS --- Paragraph 3C and 6:

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. The Secretary-General has been informed by the Arab Higher Committee that is determined to persist in its rejection of the partition plan and in its refusal to recognize the resolution of the Assembly and “anything deriving therefrom.”
​

• This is a case where the Arabs of Palestine failed to even qualify as they were NOT "willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League. Article 22(2)

Clearly, it applied to the people inhabiting Palestine even if you may claim that it also applied to people not inhabiting the former Turkish possessions.

(COMMENT)

It does not promise anything specific to anyone specific in the region. What Article 22(4) says: "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized."

"Certain Communities" does not mean "Every Community." Where do the Allied Powers identify the Arab of Palestine as "provisionally recognized."

Remember, even today, the 1988 State of Palestine cannot demonstrate that it has "reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized." The 1988 State of Palestine is totally dependent of external donor programs to maintain its existence.​

Furthermore, in the preamble of the Mandate it also referred to Article 22, reinforcing the applicability of the Covenant's intentions to adhere to the principle of well-being and development of the inhabitants.

"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, to 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..."

In fact, there was no effort to protect and promote the well-being of the inhabitants of the former Turkish territory. Rather, there was an effort to promote the well-being and development of inhabitants of other lands and continents at the expense of the inhabitants of Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Now we have shifted gears here. Now we are talking about the "Level of Effort" versus the "Acceptance of Tutelage."The need for economic development in Palestine was emphasised, in 1930, by the Permanent mandates Commission, by Sir John Hope-Simpson and by the Government of the mandatory Power. A Director of Development was appointed in the following year, and the Arab Executive and the Jewish Agency were each invited to nominate a representative to assist him in an advisory capacity. The Arab Executive declined to accept this invitation unless the Government would agree to their condition that development should not be based on the principles embodied in the Prime Minister’s letter to Dr. Weizmann.

To this day, the Arabs of Palestine, while claiming to negotiate in good fail, have consistently demonstrated that they have no willingness to accept a peace that gives them control of the entire landscape.

Remember --- Article 22 was not written to obligate or promise anything to the Arabs of Palestine. It was an understanding between the parties to the agreement.

Most Respectfully,
R

The Arabs of Palestine cannot have it both ways; on the one hand, decline recognition, and in the other make a claim that there was an obligation to be fulfilled.​

The Palestinians declined to be recognized as an inferior group.

 

[P F Tinmore]

montelatici, et a;,

Yes, try as you might, you are trying to apply Article 22 as if it was intended to apply soley to Arab Palestinians. Article 22 of the Covenant is NOT an obligation or agreement between the Allied Powers and the Arab Palestinians. The Arab Palestinians where not a signatory to the Covenant. There is no binding obligation between the Allied Powers and the Allied Powers. In fact, the Arabs of Palestine are not a signatory to any agreement. In point of fact, the Arab Palestinians cannot claim any attachment or obligation between the Allied Powers and the Arabs of Palestine. The Arab Higher Committee Delegation reaffirm here that the Arabs of Palestine cannot recognize the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate of Palestine or any situation arising or derived therefrom. The Arabs of Palestine cannot have it both ways; on the one hand, decline recognition, and in the other make a claim that there was an obligation to be fulfilled.

"Where does the League of Nations (LoN) or any Allied Power make a binding commitment to the inhabitants of the territory to which the Mandate for Palestine applied?"

In Article 22 of the LON Covenant it clearly states that:

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

(COMMENT)

The phrase "well being and development of such people" presupposes that the "inhabitants" accepted the tutelage of the more advanced nations, as articulation in Article 22(2).

• A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947 Memorandum by His Britannic Majesty's Government presented in 1947 to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine:

Later in 1923, a third attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people.
​

• A/AC.21/9 S/676 16 February 1948 First Special Report to the Security Council: The Problem of Security in Palestine --- Part I. MAIN CONSIDERATIONS --- Paragraph 3C and 6:

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. The Secretary-General has been informed by the Arab Higher Committee that is determined to persist in its rejection of the partition plan and in its refusal to recognize the resolution of the Assembly and “anything deriving therefrom.”
​

• This is a case where the Arabs of Palestine failed to even qualify as they were NOT "willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League. Article 22(2)

Clearly, it applied to the people inhabiting Palestine even if you may claim that it also applied to people not inhabiting the former Turkish possessions.

(COMMENT)

It does not promise anything specific to anyone specific in the region. What Article 22(4) says: "Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized."

"Certain Communities" does not mean "Every Community." Where do the Allied Powers identify the Arab of Palestine as "provisionally recognized."

Remember, even today, the 1988 State of Palestine cannot demonstrate that it has "reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized." The 1988 State of Palestine is totally dependent of external donor programs to maintain its existence.​

Furthermore, in the preamble of the Mandate it also referred to Article 22, reinforcing the applicability of the Covenant's intentions to adhere to the principle of well-being and development of the inhabitants.

"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, to 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..."

In fact, there was no effort to protect and promote the well-being of the inhabitants of the former Turkish territory. Rather, there was an effort to promote the well-being and development of inhabitants of other lands and continents at the expense of the inhabitants of Palestine.

(COMMENT)

Now we have shifted gears here. Now we are talking about the "Level of Effort" versus the "Acceptance of Tutelage."The need for economic development in Palestine was emphasised, in 1930, by the Permanent mandates Commission, by Sir John Hope-Simpson and by the Government of the mandatory Power. A Director of Development was appointed in the following year, and the Arab Executive and the Jewish Agency were each invited to nominate a representative to assist him in an advisory capacity. The Arab Executive declined to accept this invitation unless the Government would agree to their condition that development should not be based on the principles embodied in the Prime Minister’s letter to Dr. Weizmann.

To this day, the Arabs of Palestine, while claiming to negotiate in good fail, have consistently demonstrated that they have no willingness to accept a peace that gives them control of the entire landscape.

Remember --- Article 22 was not written to obligate or promise anything to the Arabs of Palestine. It was an understanding between the parties to the agreement.

Most Respectfully,
R

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. The Secretary-General has been informed by the Arab Higher Committee that is determined to persist in its rejection of the partition plan and in its refusal to recognize the resolution of the Assembly and “anything deriving therefrom.”
​

If Palestine had agreed to resolution 181 it would have been a treaty ceding half of Palestine to foreign colonial settlers.

There is no law requiring them to do that.