UN Resolution 181

[toastman]

Large scale immigration to a country? Can you please tell us what country you are referring to ?

Your replies have been fairly astute so far toastman, so I am hoping here that you are not going to tell me that Jews came to a place that wasn't really a country, and didn't really have inhabitants, in a meaningful sense of the word.

We can play a game of semantics here about the name of the place, its political status, and what the Ottomans, British, French, Zionists, or the Sharif of Mecca had decided to impose on its residents, but the fact is that the place did have long standing residents, who considered it home, and felt that, beyond a reasonable amount, immigration was not a good idea, as the place was full, or a full as they thought it should be.

Many Jews at the time considered they needed their own country, and as few where up for sale, Palestine was decided upon as a good bet. The problem was that they were too late. In the post war period, colonialism was fast going out of style, as Britain and France were already discovering. Israel was too late in the game.

And this is the root of the issue. The large scale movement of peoples must be one that is negociated and accepted, otherwise it can rapidly start to look like an invasion.

It absolutely had inhabitants. But Palestine was defined as a geographical region at the time, NOT a country, and that is not up for debate.

 

[MJB12741]

The indigenous Palestinians were Jews.

 

[Auteur]

Large scale immigration to a country? Can you please tell us what country you are referring to ?

Your replies have been fairly astute so far toastman, so I am hoping here that you are not going to tell me that Jews came to a place that wasn't really a country, and didn't really have inhabitants, in a meaningful sense of the word.

We can play a game of semantics here about the name of the place, its political status, and what the Ottomans, British, French, Zionists, or the Sharif of Mecca had decided to impose on its residents, but the fact is that the place did have long standing residents, who considered it home, and felt that, beyond a reasonable amount, immigration was not a good idea, as the place was full, or a full as they thought it should be.

Many Jews at the time considered they needed their own country, and as few where up for sale, Palestine was decided upon as a good bet. The problem was that they were too late. In the post war period, colonialism was fast going out of style, as Britain and France were already discovering. Israel was too late in the game.

And this is the root of the issue. The large scale movement of peoples must be one that is negociated and accepted, otherwise it can rapidly start to look like an invasion.

It absolutely had inhabitants. But Palestine was defined as a geographical region at the time, NOT a country, and that is not up for debate.

The implication of your statement is that unless a country is a sovereign state,it is up for grabs. That would have applied to a considerable area of the earth's suface in 1948, as colonialism was still very much evident. Most of Africa, significant parts of Asia, the Caribbean, Pacific, and for that matter Germay and Japan would have run the same risks as the Palestinians under this logic.

Whether or not Palestinians had been able to have the ideal form of government they would have liked to that date, it is undeniable that the residents there formed a community, and had done for generations, if not centuries. The plan to turn it into a Jewish homeland, or an out and out Jewish state, was not done in consultation with them; it was done in complete disregard of them. The friction that then arose would have likely been similar in any other part of the world.

This is the uncomfortable fact that Israel cannot admit. But it will have to at some point if a viable peace is to be had.

 

[RoccoR]

Auteur, et al,

First, I don't want any one to think that the UK, as the Mandatory, didn't address these various concerns with the inhabitants. They most certainly did exercise due diligence.

Don't misrepresent the facts just because the outcome was not to the liking of todays Palestinian.

Memorandum by: His Britannic Majesty's Government presented in 1947 to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine Published at Jerusalem, 1947]

“His Majesty’s Government have …been faced with an irreconcilable conflict of principles. There are in Palestine about 1,200,000 Arabs and 600,000 Jews. For the Jews the essential point of principle is the creation of sovereign Jewish State. For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine. The discussions of the last moth have quite clearly shown that there is no prospect of resolving this conflict by any settlement negotiated between the parties. But if the conflict has to be resolved by an arbitrary decision, that is not a decision which His Majesty'’ Government are empowered, as Mandatory, to take. His Majesty’s government have of themselves no power, under the terms of the Mandate, to award the country either to the Arabs or to the Jews, or even to partition it between them.

It is in these circumstances that we have decided that we are unable to accept the scheme put forward either by the Arabs or by the Jews, or to impose ourselves a solution or our own. We have, therefore, reached the conclusion that the only course now open to us is to submit the problem to the judgement of the United Nations. We intend to place before them an historical account of the way in which His majesty’s government have discharged their trust in Palestine over the last twenty-five years. We shall explain that the Mandate has proved to be unworkable in practice, and that the obligations undertaken to the two communities in Palestine have been shown to be irreconcilable. We shall describe the various proposals which have been put forward for dealing with the situation, namely, the Arab Plan, the Zionist’s aspirations, so far as we have been able to ascertain them, the proposals of the Anglo-American committee and the various proposals which we ourselves have put forward. We shall then ask the United Nations to consider our report, and to recommend a settlement of the problem. We do not intend ourselves to recommend any particular solution.”

SOURCE: UN GA A/AC.14/8 2 October 1947

Whether or not Palestinians had been able to have the ideal form of government they would have liked to that date, it is undeniable that the residents there formed a community, and had done for generations, if not centuries. The plan to turn it into a Jewish homeland, or an out and out Jewish state, was not done in consultation with them; it was done in complete disregard of them. The friction that then arose would have likely been similar in any other part of the world.

(COMMENT)

Exactly what "rights" did the Arab/Palestinian (by then hostile) have?

Article 1.

The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate.

Article 9.

The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that the judicial system established in Palestine shall assure to foreigners, as well as to natives, a complete guarantee of their rights.

Article 12.

The Mandatory shall be entrusted with the control of the foreign relations of Palestine, and the right to issue exequaturs to consuls appointed by foreign Powers. He shall also be entitled to afford diplomatic and consular protection to citizens of Palestine when outside its territorial limits.

SOURCE: The San Remo agreement 1920

ARTICLE 94.

The High Contracting Parties agree that Syria and Mesopotamia shall, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 22.

Part I (Covenant of the League of Nations), be provisionally recognised as independent States subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.

ARTICLE 95.

The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,

SOURCE: Sevres Treaty: Part III

Article 1

The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate.

Article 2

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, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

Article 12

The Mandatory shall be entrusted with the control of the foreign relations of Palestine and the right to issue exequaturs to consuls appointed by foreign Powers. He shall also be entitled to afford diplomatic and consular protection to citizens of Palestine when outside its territorial limit.

SOURCE: Mandate for Palestine - League of Nations (12 August 1922)

Where does it say that the Mandatory (UK which was also the Administrator of Palestine) must consult with the Arab/Palestinian? I don't think you will find that any where. What you will find is that the Mandatory was responsible for protecting the rights of the Arab/Palestinian. But the Palestinian did not have any inherent sovereignty over the Palestinian Mandate (which itself was an invention of the Allied Powers - "within such boundaries as may be fixed by them").

But the Mandatory did in fact consult with the Palestinian High Committee and the Arab High Council. Why, not because the Arab/Palestinian had this (written in stone) right, but because it was the right thing to do. But UK didn't have to do it. Clearly, if the shoe was reversed, history shows us that the we should not expect a reciprocal arrangement.

But really, there is all this talk about the "rights" of the Palestinian. Where, in 1917, or any time before GA Resolution 181(II), are these "rights" stipulated? I would really like to read them. Otherwise, the Arab/Palestinian was just another indigenous population that was not able to stand on its own. In fact, I'm not sure they can stand alone today if someone else didn't make its payroll. Without external financing, and foreign aid, what would happen to "The State of Palestine?"

Just My Thought.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[toastman]

Your replies have been fairly astute so far toastman, so I am hoping here that you are not going to tell me that Jews came to a place that wasn't really a country, and didn't really have inhabitants, in a meaningful sense of the word.

We can play a game of semantics here about the name of the place, its political status, and what the Ottomans, British, French, Zionists, or the Sharif of Mecca had decided to impose on its residents, but the fact is that the place did have long standing residents, who considered it home, and felt that, beyond a reasonable amount, immigration was not a good idea, as the place was full, or a full as they thought it should be.

Many Jews at the time considered they needed their own country, and as few where up for sale, Palestine was decided upon as a good bet. The problem was that they were too late. In the post war period, colonialism was fast going out of style, as Britain and France were already discovering. Israel was too late in the game.

And this is the root of the issue. The large scale movement of peoples must be one that is negociated and accepted, otherwise it can rapidly start to look like an invasion.

It absolutely had inhabitants. But Palestine was defined as a geographical region at the time, NOT a country, and that is not up for debate.

The implication of your statement is that unless a country is a sovereign state,it is up for grabs. That would have applied to a considerable area of the earth's suface in 1948, as colonialism was still very much evident. Most of Africa, significant parts of Asia, the Caribbean, Pacific, and for that matter Germay and Japan would have run the same risks as the Palestinians under this logic.

Whether or not Palestinians had been able to have the ideal form of government they would have liked to that date, it is undeniable that the residents there formed a community, and had done for generations, if not centuries. The plan to turn it into a Jewish homeland, or an out and out Jewish state, was not done in consultation with them; it was done in complete disregard of them. The friction that then arose would have likely been similar in any other part of the world.

This is the uncomfortable fact that Israel cannot admit. But it will have to at some point if a viable peace is to be had.

That was not the implication of my statement. I merely corrected your post that suggested that 'Palestine' was a country at designated period in which we were discussing. It was not. It was a geographical region. I did not say or imply anything that you suggested that I did in your post.

 

[MJB12741]

Right you are. Wouldn't it be a blast if the Siberians started claiming Russia is stealing their land like the Palestinians accuse Israel of doing?

It absolutely had inhabitants. But Palestine was defined as a geographical region at the time, NOT a country, and that is not up for debate.

The implication of your statement is that unless a country is a sovereign state,it is up for grabs. That would have applied to a considerable area of the earth's suface in 1948, as colonialism was still very much evident. Most of Africa, significant parts of Asia, the Caribbean, Pacific, and for that matter Germay and Japan would have run the same risks as the Palestinians under this logic.

Whether or not Palestinians had been able to have the ideal form of government they would have liked to that date, it is undeniable that the residents there formed a community, and had done for generations, if not centuries. The plan to turn it into a Jewish homeland, or an out and out Jewish state, was not done in consultation with them; it was done in complete disregard of them. The friction that then arose would have likely been similar in any other part of the world.

This is the uncomfortable fact that Israel cannot admit. But it will have to at some point if a viable peace is to be had.

That was not the implication of my statement. I merely corrected your post that suggested that 'Palestine' was a country at designated period in which we were discussing. It was not. It was a geographical region. I did not say or imply anything that you suggested that I did in your post.