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

[montelatici]

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

1. Article 22 applied to the inhabitants of the territory. 95% of whom were either Christians or Muslims. No amount of tap dancing will get you around that fact. It was an understanding that the well-being of the inhabitants was the primary purpose of the mandate. Had the UK not agreed, they would not have signed the Covenant.

2. Transferring a population of Europeans to displace the native inhabitants as colonial settlers, did not promote the well-being of said inhabitants.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

I'm actually surprised! It makes no difference what the percentage or break-down of personal property ownership was --- in the region (within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers). Article 22 contains 9 clauses which I outlined in Posting #846; which were:

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.
​

In the UN Manual, Series of League of Nations Publications VI.A. MANDATES 1945. VI.A. 1 II. THE PRINCIPLES OF THE MANDATORY REGIME, it is important to note that in the days the Covenant was written, the members of the League of Nations saved this thought:

The first two and the last three paragraphs of the Article formulate the guiding principles and may be said to constitute the framework of the new institution, the aim of which they clearly define. These provisions are applicable to all territories under mandate.

Without going into controversial questions regarding the legal nature of the mandates, it may be said that the following main principles emerge from these provisions: The aim of the institution is to ensure the well-being and development of the peoples inhabiting the territories in question.
​

Today, we have to examine:

• Article 22(1) --- what the phrase "the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples" actually means.
• Article 22(2) --- and how this impacts the consideration that the Arab Palestinian was not will to accept of participate in the development of self-governing institutions; thus, contributing to the results that have lead them to the condition they are in today.
​

1. Article 22 applied to the inhabitants of the territory. 95% of whom were either Christians or Muslims. No amount of tap dancing will get you around that fact. It was an understanding that the well-being of the inhabitants was the primary purpose of the mandate. Had the UK not agreed, they would not have signed the Covenant.

2. Transferring a population of Europeans to displace the native inhabitants as colonial settlers, did not promote the well-being of said inhabitants.

(COMMENT)

Whether the damage done to the "well-being" of the Arab Palestinians externally inspired, or whether it was politically inspired, it was politically toxic and a self-inflicted wound. But as we have already discussed, The Arab Palestinians rejected,not just once, but several time, to be part of the self-governing institution.

There was NO TRANSFER of any population from anywhere in the world to Palestine. This is just pure propaganda that twists the words as to give the impression that something illegal happened. Just as the US accepts people from all over the world through Immigration Laws, so it was the case that the Mandatory was instructed by the Council to facilitate Jewish immigration of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National Home; a decision made by the Allied Powers under Treaty Article 16 (holding the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned).

(CAUTIOUS LANGUAGE)

The Mandatory did not set the conditions that pushed a political confrontation and touched-off the aggressive advance and introduction of Arab League Forces

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

I'm actually surprised! It makes no difference what the percentage or break-down of personal property ownership was --- in the region (within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers). Article 22 contains 9 clauses which I outlined in Posting #846; which were:

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.
​

In the UN Manual, Series of League of Nations Publications VI.A. MANDATES 1945. VI.A. 1 II. THE PRINCIPLES OF THE MANDATORY REGIME, it is important to note that in the days the Covenant was written, the members of the League of Nations saved this thought:

The first two and the last three paragraphs of the Article formulate the guiding principles and may be said to constitute the framework of the new institution, the aim of which they clearly define. These provisions are applicable to all territories under mandate.

Without going into controversial questions regarding the legal nature of the mandates, it may be said that the following main principles emerge from these provisions: The aim of the institution is to ensure the well-being and development of the peoples inhabiting the territories in question.
​

Today, we have to examine:

• Article 22(1) --- what the phrase "the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples" actually means.
• Article 22(2) --- and how this impacts the consideration that the Arab Palestinian was not will to accept of participate in the development of self-governing institutions; thus, contributing to the results that have lead them to the condition they are in today.
​

1. Article 22 applied to the inhabitants of the territory. 95% of whom were either Christians or Muslims. No amount of tap dancing will get you around that fact. It was an understanding that the well-being of the inhabitants was the primary purpose of the mandate. Had the UK not agreed, they would not have signed the Covenant.

2. Transferring a population of Europeans to displace the native inhabitants as colonial settlers, did not promote the well-being of said inhabitants.

(COMMENT)

Whether the damage done to the "well-being" of the Arab Palestinians externally inspired, or whether it was politically inspired, it was politically toxic and a self-inflicted wound. But as we have already discussed, The Arab Palestinians rejected,not just once, but several time, to be part of the self-governing institution.

There was NO TRANSFER of any population from anywhere in the world to Palestine. This is just pure propaganda that twists the words as to give the impression that something illegal happened. Just as the US accepts people from all over the world through Immigration Laws, so it was the case that the Mandatory was instructed by the Council to facilitate Jewish immigration of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National Home; a decision made by the Allied Powers under Treaty Article 16 (holding the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned).

(CAUTIOUS LANGUAGE)

The Mandatory did not set the conditions that pushed a political confrontation and touched-off the aggressive advance and introduction of Arab League Forces

Most Respectfully,
R

1. Article 22 sets the primary tangible obligation to the inhabitants on the part of the Mandatory.

2. There was nothing self-inflicted about facilitating a colonial settlement project in Palestine for Europeans at the expense of the native inhabitants. The damage was inflicted by the actions of the Mandatory which contravened the primary obligation of insuring the well-being of the inhabitants.

3. There was a transfer of a European colonist population to Palestine. The Zionists admitted as much in public declarations.

The rest of your bullshit is your usual tap dance that makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Shusha]

Monte, out of curiosity, how would you define "transfer" as opposed to simple immigration?

 

[montelatici]

Monte, out of curiosity, how would you define "transfer" as opposed to simple immigration?

Immigration does not entail the substitution of the existing inhabitants with the immigrants and the establishment of rule over the territory by the immigrants.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

STOP TRYING TO USE MODERN DAY LAWS RETROSPECTIVELY.

The law in 1923 and 1948 was different to what we have today, and the arab muslims lost all rights to the land they infested when they lost the war in 1917. As you have been repeatedly told article 22 has no bearing on the case as it was not meant for that purpose, and still you try and drive it in as if it did. The former inhabitants were given 78% of the land as their national home in 1924 and it was called trans Jordan. The remaining 22% was for the Jewish NATIONal home. END OF STORY
The arab muslims have used violence and terror to try and get all the land as dictated by their religion and have failed, even after enlisting morons like yourself to fight their corner. At the end of the day International laws of 1917, 1921, 1923 and 1949 prevail and the land is Jewish

 

[Phoenall]

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.

There is no law granting them any of the land from the 28% of the mandate of Palestine granted for the Jewish NATIONal home is there. So how would they give up what they never held in the first place. Remember the Jews had already willingly given up 78% of their allocation to keep the peace. If they knew then what they know now they would have refused and told the LoN to take part of Saudi for the bribe to appease the Hashemite rulers

 

[Phoenall]

Monte, out of curiosity, how would you define "transfer" as opposed to simple immigration?

Immigration does not entail the substitution of the existing inhabitants with the immigrants and the establishment of rule over the territory by the immigrants.

By what laws enacted prior to 1949 ?

 

[Phoenall]

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

1. Article 22 applied to the inhabitants of the territory. 95% of whom were either Christians or Muslims. No amount of tap dancing will get you around that fact. It was an understanding that the well-being of the inhabitants was the primary purpose of the mandate. Had the UK not agreed, they would not have signed the Covenant.

2. Transferring a population of Europeans to displace the native inhabitants as colonial settlers, did not promote the well-being of said inhabitants.

Where does it say what you claim



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.

Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.

There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population.

In every case of mandate, the Mandatory shall render to the Council an annual report in reference to the territory committed to its charge.

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





The last sentence sums up the whole of article 22, and clearly says that the LoN has the final say in all matters.



No civil or religious rights of the time were breached and no international laws broken by taking the Jews and granting them 22% of the land as their NATIONal home. In fact the arab muslims breached international laws by migrating illegally en masse to Palestine post 1923.

 

[Phoenall]

montelatici, et al,

I'm actually surprised! It makes no difference what the percentage or break-down of personal property ownership was --- in the region (within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers). Article 22 contains 9 clauses which I outlined in Posting #846; which were:

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.
​

In the UN Manual, Series of League of Nations Publications VI.A. MANDATES 1945. VI.A. 1 II. THE PRINCIPLES OF THE MANDATORY REGIME, it is important to note that in the days the Covenant was written, the members of the League of Nations saved this thought:

The first two and the last three paragraphs of the Article formulate the guiding principles and may be said to constitute the framework of the new institution, the aim of which they clearly define. These provisions are applicable to all territories under mandate.

Without going into controversial questions regarding the legal nature of the mandates, it may be said that the following main principles emerge from these provisions: The aim of the institution is to ensure the well-being and development of the peoples inhabiting the territories in question.
​

Today, we have to examine:

• Article 22(1) --- what the phrase "the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples" actually means.
• Article 22(2) --- and how this impacts the consideration that the Arab Palestinian was not will to accept of participate in the development of self-governing institutions; thus, contributing to the results that have lead them to the condition they are in today.
​

1. Article 22 applied to the inhabitants of the territory. 95% of whom were either Christians or Muslims. No amount of tap dancing will get you around that fact. It was an understanding that the well-being of the inhabitants was the primary purpose of the mandate. Had the UK not agreed, they would not have signed the Covenant.

2. Transferring a population of Europeans to displace the native inhabitants as colonial settlers, did not promote the well-being of said inhabitants.

(COMMENT)

Whether the damage done to the "well-being" of the Arab Palestinians externally inspired, or whether it was politically inspired, it was politically toxic and a self-inflicted wound. But as we have already discussed, The Arab Palestinians rejected,not just once, but several time, to be part of the self-governing institution.

There was NO TRANSFER of any population from anywhere in the world to Palestine. This is just pure propaganda that twists the words as to give the impression that something illegal happened. Just as the US accepts people from all over the world through Immigration Laws, so it was the case that the Mandatory was instructed by the Council to facilitate Jewish immigration of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National Home; a decision made by the Allied Powers under Treaty Article 16 (holding the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned).

(CAUTIOUS LANGUAGE)

The Mandatory did not set the conditions that pushed a political confrontation and touched-off the aggressive advance and introduction of Arab League Forces

Most Respectfully,
R

1. Article 22 sets the primary tangible obligation to the inhabitants on the part of the Mandatory.

2. There was nothing self-inflicted about facilitating a colonial settlement project in Palestine for Europeans at the expense of the native inhabitants. The damage was inflicted by the actions of the Mandatory which contravened the primary obligation of insuring the well-being of the inhabitants.

3. There was a transfer of a European colonist population to Palestine. The Zionists admitted as much in public declarations.

The rest of your bullshit is your usual tap dance that makes absolutely no sense.

1) where does it say that, show the words that mean it has an obligation to the inhabitants.

2) what international laws of the time were breached and what civil rights were refused by granting 28% of the mandate of Palestine as the Jewish NATIONal home ?

3) what international laws of the time were breached in the process.

Any international laws must be shown in full with the date of their implementation.

 

[Phoenall]

Monte, out of curiosity, how would you define "transfer" as opposed to simple immigration?

Immigration does not entail the substitution of the existing inhabitants with the immigrants and the establishment of rule over the territory by the immigrants.

So show examples of this being the case between 1850 when the Jewish migration began and 1948 when Israel was created ?

 

[theliq]

Monte, out of curiosity, how would you define "transfer" as opposed to simple immigration?

Immigration does not entail the substitution of the existing inhabitants with the immigrants and the establishment of rule over the territory by the immigrants.

So show examples of this being the case between 1850 when the Jewish migration began and 1948 when Israel was created ?

No point explaining or showing to you,because when we do......you still spew the same crap.....intresting though that you admit Jews migrated to Palestine,and were illegal immigrants,which incidentally we all already knew/know.........steve..hows Golders Green high street these days,still slipping over banana skins

 

[Phoenall]

Monte, out of curiosity, how would you define "transfer" as opposed to simple immigration?

Immigration does not entail the substitution of the existing inhabitants with the immigrants and the establishment of rule over the territory by the immigrants.

So show examples of this being the case between 1850 when the Jewish migration began and 1948 when Israel was created ?

No point explaining or showing to you,because when we do......you still spew the same crap.....intresting though that you admit Jews migrated to Palestine,and were illegal immigrants,which incidentally we all already knew/know.........steve..hows Golders Green high street these days,still slipping over banana skins

In other words you cant find any evidence so just ignore the truth.


SO TIME TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP BOY, AS YOU ARE LETTING YOUR TRUE IDENTITY SHOW.

 

[theliq]

Monte, out of curiosity, how would you define "transfer" as opposed to simple immigration?

Immigration does not entail the substitution of the existing inhabitants with the immigrants and the establishment of rule over the territory by the immigrants.

So show examples of this being the case between 1850 when the Jewish migration began and 1948 when Israel was created ?

No point explaining or showing to you,because when we do......you still spew the same crap.....intresting though that you admit Jews migrated to Palestine,and were illegal immigrants,which incidentally we all already knew/know.........steve..hows Golders Green high street these days,still slipping over banana skins

In other words you cant find any evidence so just ignore the truth.


SO TIME TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP BOY, AS YOU ARE LETTING YOUR TRUE IDENTITY SHOW.

Whatever.....I'm off to London and Bari for a few days,.........keep trying Pheo

 

[Phoenall]

Monte, out of curiosity, how would you define "transfer" as opposed to simple immigration?

Immigration does not entail the substitution of the existing inhabitants with the immigrants and the establishment of rule over the territory by the immigrants.

So show examples of this being the case between 1850 when the Jewish migration began and 1948 when Israel was created ?

No point explaining or showing to you,because when we do......you still spew the same crap.....intresting though that you admit Jews migrated to Palestine,and were illegal immigrants,which incidentally we all already knew/know.........steve..hows Golders Green high street these days,still slipping over banana skins

In other words you cant find any evidence so just ignore the truth.


SO TIME TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP BOY, AS YOU ARE LETTING YOUR TRUE IDENTITY SHOW.

Whatever.....I'm off to London and Bari for a few days,.........keep trying Pheo

No not whatever you make the claim you produce the proof. A failure to do so means that you are a LYING POS

 

[Humanity]

Immigration does not entail the substitution of the existing inhabitants with the immigrants and the establishment of rule over the territory by the immigrants.

So show examples of this being the case between 1850 when the Jewish migration began and 1948 when Israel was created ?

No point explaining or showing to you,because when we do......you still spew the same crap.....intresting though that you admit Jews migrated to Palestine,and were illegal immigrants,which incidentally we all already knew/know.........steve..hows Golders Green high street these days,still slipping over banana skins

In other words you cant find any evidence so just ignore the truth.


SO TIME TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP BOY, AS YOU ARE LETTING YOUR TRUE IDENTITY SHOW.

Whatever.....I'm off to London and Bari for a few days,.........keep trying Pheo

No not whatever you make the claim you produce the proof. A failure to do so means that you are a LYING POS

Practice what you preach Phoney, practice what you preach!

 

[Phoenall]

So show examples of this being the case between 1850 when the Jewish migration began and 1948 when Israel was created ?

No point explaining or showing to you,because when we do......you still spew the same crap.....intresting though that you admit Jews migrated to Palestine,and were illegal immigrants,which incidentally we all already knew/know.........steve..hows Golders Green high street these days,still slipping over banana skins

In other words you cant find any evidence so just ignore the truth.


SO TIME TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP BOY, AS YOU ARE LETTING YOUR TRUE IDENTITY SHOW.

Whatever.....I'm off to London and Bari for a few days,.........keep trying Pheo

No not whatever you make the claim you produce the proof. A failure to do so means that you are a LYING POS

Practice what you preach Phoney, practice what you preach!

I do and you seem to ignore the reality. Over 1000 requests of links to prove your racist claims and all you do is run away and hide

 

[Humanity]

Over 1000 requests of links to prove your racist claims

And you can't even do that Phoney!

 

[Phoenall]

Over 1000 requests of links to prove your racist claims

And you can't even do that Phoney!

So when will you provide the links requested, instead of projecting your failings onto others ?

I at least give links until morons start ignoring requests to bring theirs to the board

How about a link to prove your claim above ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Jimmy Johnson - Israel: A Settler Colonial State?