Your solution to the ME crisis

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Application and the Acceptance by the Jewish Agency of the Partition Plan, in Annex A, as noted in Footnote #5: "The boundary lines described in Part II are indicated in Annex A." (See below).

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is an interesting challenge.

Indeed, the acquisition of land through the threat or use of force is illegal.

(QUESTION)

• Can you actually cite the International Law that says this?
  
• If this is true, what was the purpose of the attacks on Israeli Sovereignty in 1967 and 1973? If the Arab Nations had won, would they not just have to give it back?

(SIDEBAR)

REFERENCE:

Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States
DECLARATION ON PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW FRIENDLY RELATIONS AND CO

1. Solemnly proclaims the following principles:​

The principle that States (the Arab Legions that attacked Israel in 1948, were preparing to attack Israel in 1967, and launched a sneak attack in 1973) shall refrain in their international ~ relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Every State (including the Arab Legions that attacked Israel in 1948, were preparing to attack Israel in 1967, and launched a sneak attack in 1973) has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State (Israel as recognized by GA Res 181(II) and subsequent Treaties), or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such a threat or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues.

A war (Arab attacks Israel in 1948, were preparing to attack Israel in 1967, and launched a sneak attack in 1973) of aggression constitutes a crime against the peace, for which there is responsibility under international law.

In accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations, States have the duty to refrain from propaganda (Hamas Charter/Hezbollah Covenant) for wars of aggression.

Every State (the Arab Legions that attacked Israel in 1948, were preparing to attack Israel in 1967, and launched a sneak attack in 1973) has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State (Israel as recognized by GA Res 181(II) and subsequent Treaties) or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.​

The consistent use of this to justify the accusation that Israel is in violation of International Law is very arguable.

I don't think you are going to find a prohibition that fits. The Declaration of Principles applies to open aggression as in the Sneak Attack of 1973 or the military buildup (prelude to war) in 1967. But is doesn't apply to the territory lost by the aggressor nations (the Arab League). In fact, after most wars, the losing aggressor must make payments to the winner for the cost of the war.​

Most Respectfully,
R

Every State has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

The problem is that Israel has no territory.

(the Arab Legions that attacked Israel in 1948, ...

Could you provide a 1948 map of Israel? I believe you are incorrect.

(MAP INSERT)

Annex A to Resolution 181 (II) of the
General Assembly, dated 29 November 1947​

UN LINK ===>

PALESTINE PLAN OF PARTITION WITH ECONOMIC UNION
proposed by the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question​

(COMMENT)

(SUB REFERENCE)

ISRAEL APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP
S/1093 of 29 November 1948​

You will note that Israel made application pursuant to General Assembly Resolution of 29 November, 1947 which is A/RES/181(II). Included in A/RES/181(II) is the Map as Annex A. It was all together as a complete packet and on file with the UN.

All links provided, are UN Archive links.

On 11 May 1949, Israel was admitted as a Member: A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949.

UN LINK ===> 273 (III). Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[High_Gravity]

Look, any land occupied by arabs is a waste of really good sand. We already have troops in Saudi Arabia, so let's kick their ass and take their oil, after all, didn't most of the 9/11 hijackers come from there? We would also be doing their women a massive favour.

Are you saying that we wouldn't be doing their women a massive favour by liberating Saudi Arabia? Look, we already get their oil, and our army is already there, so let's just stop paying for the oil and just take it, as protection money, if you will. Then install some puppet dictator (for a short while) who'll democratize the country and kick out all the fat fucking sheiks and their burqas? What's your problem with that?

How well did that work out in Iraq? its not our business to liberate Muslim women, Saudi Arabia is considered the Muslim Holy Land invading it would cause holy hell, go back to your video games son.

 

[High_Gravity]

The question is why does the UN recognize Israel using fake borders?

Why would they do that?

In your " world" Israel shouldn't have Borders because it shouldn't exist. Does that answer your question? If the UN Borders are " fake" then Israel does not have to recognize those " borders" that even you have to admit never existed in the first place.

So let's cut to the chase, after all this useless philosophy: Tinmore believes the thriving nation of Israel should be destroyed, most of the Jews there should go to Europe, and a 23rd Arab nation, with no distinct personality, should replace the one Jewish country in the whole world. Not happening.

Thats what he believes, yes.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Application and the Acceptance by the Jewish Agency of the Partition Plan, in Annex A, as noted in Footnote #5: "The boundary lines described in Part II are indicated in Annex A." (See below).

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is an interesting challenge.


(QUESTION)

• Can you actually cite the International Law that says this?
  
• If this is true, what was the purpose of the attacks on Israeli Sovereignty in 1967 and 1973? If the Arab Nations had won, would they not just have to give it back?

(SIDEBAR)

REFERENCE:

Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States
DECLARATION ON PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW FRIENDLY RELATIONS AND CO

1. Solemnly proclaims the following principles:​

The principle that States (the Arab Legions that attacked Israel in 1948, were preparing to attack Israel in 1967, and launched a sneak attack in 1973) shall refrain in their international ~ relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Every State (including the Arab Legions that attacked Israel in 1948, were preparing to attack Israel in 1967, and launched a sneak attack in 1973) has the duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State (Israel as recognized by GA Res 181(II) and subsequent Treaties), or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Such a threat or use of force constitutes a violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and shall never be employed as a means of settling international issues.

A war (Arab attacks Israel in 1948, were preparing to attack Israel in 1967, and launched a sneak attack in 1973) of aggression constitutes a crime against the peace, for which there is responsibility under international law.

In accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations, States have the duty to refrain from propaganda (Hamas Charter/Hezbollah Covenant) for wars of aggression.

Every State (the Arab Legions that attacked Israel in 1948, were preparing to attack Israel in 1967, and launched a sneak attack in 1973) has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State (Israel as recognized by GA Res 181(II) and subsequent Treaties) or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States.​

The consistent use of this to justify the accusation that Israel is in violation of International Law is very arguable.

I don't think you are going to find a prohibition that fits. The Declaration of Principles applies to open aggression as in the Sneak Attack of 1973 or the military buildup (prelude to war) in 1967. But is doesn't apply to the territory lost by the aggressor nations (the Arab League). In fact, after most wars, the losing aggressor must make payments to the winner for the cost of the war.​

Most Respectfully,
R

The problem is that Israel has no territory.

(the Arab Legions that attacked Israel in 1948, ...

Could you provide a 1948 map of Israel? I believe you are incorrect.

(MAP INSERT)

Annex A to Resolution 181 (II) of the
General Assembly, dated 29 November 1947​

UN LINK ===>

PALESTINE PLAN OF PARTITION WITH ECONOMIC UNION
proposed by the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question​

(COMMENT)

(SUB REFERENCE)

ISRAEL APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP
S/1093 of 29 November 1948​

You will note that Israel made application pursuant to General Assembly Resolution of 29 November, 1947 which is A/RES/181(II). Included in A/RES/181(II) is the Map as Annex A. It was all together as a complete packet and on file with the UN.

All links provided, are UN Archive links.

On 11 May 1949, Israel was admitted as a Member: A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949.

UN LINK ===> 273 (III). Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations​

Most Respectfully,
R

That is a 1947 map of Palestine.

 

[RoccoR]

et al,

He has his timelines fouled-up.

In your " world" Israel shouldn't have Borders because it shouldn't exist. Does that answer your question? If the UN Borders are " fake" then Israel does not have to recognize those " borders" that even you have to admit never existed in the first place.

So let's cut to the chase, after all this useless philosophy: Tinmore believes the thriving nation of Israel should be destroyed, most of the Jews there should go to Europe, and a 23rd Arab nation, with no distinct personality, should replace the one Jewish country in the whole world. Not happening.

Thats what he believes, yes.

(COMMENT)

He is confused as to what is in force at what moment in time. Today, the treaties are in force (together with the Syrian Armistice and the Green Line around the West Bank); but at different times, other forces were in play.

Granted, there is some disputes, particularly with the Wall. Israel has clearly, in some cases, stepped over the boundary. But that is to be settled through peaceful means; not this asymmetric martyrdom squaredance the Palestinians are doing.

The first step to the peace process is to dissolve the Hamas Charter and the Hezbollah Covenant. Otherwise, there is still an armed uprising in progress requiring greater and greater levels of security layered on the territories.

(SIDEBAR)

The Palestinians are not stupid. They know very well what the borders are and what caused the various shifts in the borders; after each conflict. The question of borders they continually raise is to really shift the discussion for their justification to continue the insurgency. If they wanted a nation, they could have a nation. They don't want a nation. They want a lifestyle of war and insurrection. They glamorize it.

The Palestinian, whether in Gaza or the West Bank, are not hurting to the point that they would be open to peace solutions. At least not yet.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You have to read the map and the purpose for the map colors.

That is a 1947 map of Palestine.

(COMMENT)

It was a Mandate Era Map, covering the Mandate territory, used by the Committee that originally recommended the Partition. It was used in GA Resolution 181(II).

The title of the map is: Palestine Plan of Partition. It is not just Palestine.

v/r
R

 

[Kondor3]

I'm pretty sure that ol' PFT et al are telling us that the Arab-Palestinians did not agree to the Partition Plan, therefore, even the original Partition Plan and subsequent Partition of 1948 and UN actions of 1949 are illegal and inoperative.

Because the UN did not obtain the permission of the Palestinians to partition the land, the past 65 years do not count, in our context here.

Nothing else signifies, from their perspective, when all else is said and done.

This is, in all probability, a defensible perspective, with respect to law, logic and ethics.

What the Palestinians fail to understand (effectively) is that they were thrown under the bus many years ago by the world at large in order to make room for what was left of the Jews of the world.

And as wrong as that might once have been - or at least as wrong as that might have seemed - their failure to come to grips with the New Reality for the past 65 years has damaged themselves more than anybody else.

As a so-called People, they are scraps - an admixture of bloodlines with genetic markers of natives and the wide range of lands surrounding them or which have conquered them.

As a Polity at the time of the 1940s Partition they were fragmented and largely a bad joke and damned-near nonexistent and, unlike the Jews, once the Partition occurred, they could not get their act together as a unified government with a unified, effective military arm.

Sophisticated outsider-nations perceived them to be a joke and not terribly important in the run-up to the Partition and their loss in the 1948 War reinforced and finalized that perception.

The Palestinians have been 'swinging after the bell' for 65 years and their so-called leaders and sympathizers in nearby countries have been filling their head full of Sugar-Plum Visions of Full Recapture and Statehood ever since - marketing this Vision as a Holy Grail of sorts.

If there was ever a so-called People for whom it could be said that they had lost nearly all touch with Political Reality and Practicality, and had been behaving in a sort of collective Obsessive-Compulsive manner, it would be this sad, nasty little collection of souls.

You can counterpoint their claims and they hear and see what you're saying but they are driven to ignore it and to continue their pursuit of their original schemes to an extent and with an intensity most likely unknown to you or I or virtually any of our colleagues here.

They cannot help themselves.

I don't know if there is a DSM-IV or -V (Mental Health) Diagnostic Code for such Collective Delusion, but, if not, there ought to be.

I would imagine that many of those fortunate enough to move away and begin new lives far from these conditions manage to sort themselves out within a generation or two and eventually let go of the delusional and manic behaviors of their increasingly distant kindred.

 

[Mom]

P F Tinmore, et al,

The Application and the Acceptance by the Jewish Agency of the Partition Plan, in Annex A, as noted in Footnote #5: "The boundary lines described in Part II are indicated in Annex A." (See below).

The problem is that Israel has no territory.



Could you provide a 1948 map of Israel? I believe you are incorrect.

(MAP INSERT)

Annex A to Resolution 181 (II) of the
General Assembly, dated 29 November 1947​

UN LINK ===>

PALESTINE PLAN OF PARTITION WITH ECONOMIC UNION
proposed by the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question​

(COMMENT)

(SUB REFERENCE)

ISRAEL APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP
S/1093 of 29 November 1948​

You will note that Israel made application pursuant to General Assembly Resolution of 29 November, 1947 which is A/RES/181(II). Included in A/RES/181(II) is the Map as Annex A. It was all together as a complete packet and on file with the UN.

All links provided, are UN Archive links.

On 11 May 1949, Israel was admitted as a Member: A/RES/273 (III) 11 May 1949.

UN LINK ===> 273 (III). Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations​

Most Respectfully,
R

That is a 1947 map of Palestine.

If the palestinians want land, Saudi Arabia has plenty that they're not using. The US army could secure it for them in minutes.

 

[Mom]

Are you saying that we wouldn't be doing their women a massive favour by liberating Saudi Arabia? Look, we already get their oil, and our army is already there, so let's just stop paying for the oil and just take it, as protection money, if you will. Then install some puppet dictator (for a short while) who'll democratize the country and kick out all the fat fucking sheiks and their burqas? What's your problem with that?

How well did that work out in Iraq? its not our business to liberate Muslim women, Saudi Arabia is considered the Muslim Holy Land invading it would cause holy hell, go back to your video games son.

Iraq's women didn't need liberating, but their oil did. It's worked out pretty well, the only people still fighting in Iraq are muslims, so it's all good, just sit back and enjoy the show (and their oil).

But you'd prefer to keep women oppressed in SA. Got it.

 

[proudveteran06]

" Palestine" was never a Country. It was a generalized territory.

P.S. It never will become a Country

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

You have to read the map and the purpose for the map colors.

That is a 1947 map of Palestine.

(COMMENT)

It was a Mandate Era Map, covering the Mandate territory, used by the Committee that originally recommended the Partition. It was used in GA Resolution 181(II).

The title of the map is: Palestine Plan of Partition. It is not just Palestine.

v/r
R

The mandate had no territory. It was to render administrative assistance and advice to Palestine. The territory was Palestine.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who or what defines Palestine?

The mandate had no territory. It was to render administrative assistance and advice to Palestine. The territory was Palestine.

(COMMENT)

This is double talk, a way of trying to distill a Place and a People.

A Mandate is an official command or instruction from an authority (the LoN/UN). Every Mandate has limits. It has limits in scope, authority, and territory bound. It has a specific mission: (Examples)

• to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine
  
• the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people
  
• Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration
  
• responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home
  
• and the development of self-governing institutions
  
• responsible for seeing that the judicial system established in Palestine
  
• take all necessary measures to safeguard the interests of the community in connection with the development of the country, and, subject to any international obligations accepted by the Mandatory
  
• have full power to provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the country or of the public works, services and utilities established or to be established therein
  
• introduce a land system appropriate to the needs of the country, having regard, among other things, to the desirability of promoting the close settlement and intensive cultivation of the land.
  
• entrusted with the control of the foreign relations of Palestine and the right to issue exequaturs to consuls appointed by foreign Powers
  
• study, define and determine the rights and claims in connection with the Holy Places and the rights and claims relating to the different religious communities in Palestine
  
• etc ... much more.

It is a bit more than just "render administrative assistance and advice."

Remember, Palestine in this case, is not defined by the (so called) Palestinians.

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, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may 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.

SOURCE: Sevres Treaty: Part III

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Who or what defines Palestine?

The mandate had no territory. It was to render administrative assistance and advice to Palestine. The territory was Palestine.

(COMMENT)

This is double talk, a way of trying to distill a Place and a People.

A Mandate is an official command or instruction from an authority (the LoN/UN). Every Mandate has limits. It has limits in scope, authority, and territory bound. It has a specific mission: (Examples)

• to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine
  
• the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people
  
• Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration
  
• responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home
  
• and the development of self-governing institutions
  
• responsible for seeing that the judicial system established in Palestine
  
• take all necessary measures to safeguard the interests of the community in connection with the development of the country, and, subject to any international obligations accepted by the Mandatory
  
• have full power to provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the country or of the public works, services and utilities established or to be established therein
  
• introduce a land system appropriate to the needs of the country, having regard, among other things, to the desirability of promoting the close settlement and intensive cultivation of the land.
  
• entrusted with the control of the foreign relations of Palestine and the right to issue exequaturs to consuls appointed by foreign Powers
  
• study, define and determine the rights and claims in connection with the Holy Places and the rights and claims relating to the different religious communities in Palestine
  
• etc ... much more.

It is a bit more than just "render administrative assistance and advice."

Remember, Palestine in this case, is not defined by the (so called) Palestinians.

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, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may 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.

SOURCE: Sevres Treaty: Part III

Most Respectfully,
R

I think you are blowing a lot of smoke on this issue.

They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."

But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of 1939

The name of the place was Palestine. The international borders were Palestinian. The mandate was not to create a Jewish state in Palestine.

There was no intent for the mandate to create a Jewish state in Palestine and it did not.

The creation of the "state" of Israel is unrelated to anything you posted.

 

[Mom]

New Mandate Alert!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If the arabs don't stfu, the Israelis will just take more of their land. And guess what? The rest of the world won't care. After 9/11, arab motherfuckers lost ALL their western sympathy.

 

[sealadaigh]

New Mandate Alert!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If the arabs don't stfu, the Israelis will just take more of their land. And guess what? The rest of the world won't care. After 9/11, arab motherfuckers lost ALL their western sympathy.

let me be among the first, if not the first, to welcome you to this forum. you should fit in well here but a word of advice...you may want to bone up on the history of the christians in nigeria.

as for the palestine mandate...i am not quite sure the LoN or the UN really had any right, other than the right that comes from the barrel of a gun, to dictate the future course of the peoples of the mideast and southern asia without any consideration at all paid to the natural regions inhabited by these people.

 

[Kondor3]

"...The creation of the "state" of Israel is unrelated to anything you posted."

There may very well be some merit to this counterpoint.

Nevertheless, it no longer matters.

Israel has won the battle for Palestine and most of the land is theirs now.

They will have completed the process of squeezing the remaining Palestinians off of their remaining land within the next couple of decades.

The so-called Palestinians were never a high priority for most of the rest of the world anyway.

And they have been largely abandoned by friend and foe and neutral alike, at least from a practical standpoint.

The sooner the remaining Palestinians come to grips with this New Reality, and relocate elsewhere, the sooner we will have quiet again in the region for a while.

The Arab-Muslim neighbor-countries of Palestine talked big, and performed little.

They continue to pay lip-service to the idea of redeeming Palestine but it's only lip-service.

Most of their militaries pee their pants when they contemplate going up against the Israelis.

With good reason.

There is no substantive and redeeming help coming.

It's over.

The Palestinians need to get the hell outta Dodge while they still can.

Perhaps they'll find happiness and fulfillment in new lands, carving out new and happy lives for themselves someplace where the greatest measure of a child does not lie in the speed with which he or she can attain martyrdom after being subjected to suicidal brainwashing messages embedded in their children's entertainment media.

They sure-as-hell aren't going to find that kind of happiness and sanity by hanging-about Palestine.

 

[José]

“The Anglo-American war policy has reached a dead end. They have called up the spirits, and can no longer get rid of them. Our predictions, beginning with Poland, are beginning to be confirmed by a remarkable series of current events. One can only smile when the English and Americans forge plans for the year 2000. They will be happy if they survive until 1950.”

Joseph Goebbels, January 21 1945

"I am one of those who believe that there is no permanent home for even a section of the Bantu in the white area of South Africa and the destiny of South Africa depends on this essential point. If the principle of permanent residence for the black man in the area of the white is accepted then it is the beginning of the end of civilisation as we know it in this country."

Pieter Botha, last president of SA under apartheid, 1964

"Segregation now! Segregation tomorrow! Segregation forever!"

George Wallace, 1963

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I've heard this before.

I think you are blowing a lot of smoke on this issue.

They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."

But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of 1939

(COMMENT)

You know as well as I do that the 1939 White Paper was overruled by the UN Commission as an incorrect interpretation of policy.

The name of the place was Palestine. The international borders were Palestinian. The mandate was not to create a Jewish state in Palestine.

(COMMENT)

The name of the Administrative Region was Palestine. Palestine was not a state and the boundaries of Palestine were artificially set by the Mandate in accordance with the Treaty and the Allied Powers. The assertion you keep making is that there were some international borders that established Palestine as some official sovereignty; there was not.

It is a half truth that "the mandate was not to create a Jewish state in Palestine." A Jewish State was not precluded as a solution.

4. It has been urged that the expression " a national home for the Jewish people " offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government do not wish to contest the view, which was expressed by the Royal Commission, that the Zionist leaders at the time of the issue of the Balfour Declaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration. But, with the Royal Commission, His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country.

SOURCE: PALESTINE Statement of Policy 1 May 1939

As you can see (in the interest of full disclosure) that a Jewish State against Arab sentiment was not intended by the Mandatory (UK). In fact, the UK Royal Commission fought on behalf of the Arab to insure the rights of the Arab were taken into consideration. (The Palestinian bit the hand that was helping them.)

There was no intent for the mandate to create a Jewish state in Palestine and it did not.

(COMMENT)

As you can see, in the previous passage, it was not a Mandate to create the Jewish State (agreed), but it was certainly a Mandate to create the National Home. How the "national Home" is made a reality is exactly the argument. Ultimately, the decision was in the hands of the UNSCOP (UN Special Commission on Palestine).

The creation of the "state" of Israel is unrelated to anything you posted.

(COMMENT)

The intention of the Mandate was to create a Jewish National Home. The solution was to create a "Jewish State" as recommended by the UNSCOP.

Let me examine these undertakings further. First, the term "National Home" which is used throughout the Declaration and the mandate, is somewhat ambiguous and has been open to various interpretations. It has been claimed that it meant that Palestine should ultimately become a Jewish State. There can be no doubt that the possibility of a Jewish State was not excluded; it was regarded as a definite possibility by some of the leading statesmen who were familiar with the intentions of those who drew up the Balfour Declaration. Thus President Wilson spoke early in 1919 of laying in Palestine "the foundations of a Jewish Commonwealth", and General Smuts towards the end of the same year foretold an increasing stream of Jewish immigration into the country and "in generations to come a great Jewish State rising there once more". His Majesty's Government accept that the possibility of Palestine becoming a Jewish State was not precluded.

SOURCE: Palestine and Trans-Jordan: Examination of the Annual Report for 1938.

This is not the first time that someone has made this very same challenge. It was made even then (1939), and Mr McDonald answered it twice. Later, it was addressed again by the UNSCOP:

75. Few phrases in history have provoked such lasting contention as "Jewish National Home." Twenty years after the issuance of the Balfour Declaration, the Royal Commission devoted a chapter63/ of its report to a careful appraisal of the relevant texts and historical antecedents in order to clarify the meaning of the phrase.

76. Regarding the political implications of the term "National Home," the finding of the Commission is unequivocal:

"We have been permitted to examine the records which bear upon the question and it is clear to us that the words "the establishment in Palestine of the National Home' were the outcome of a compromise between those Ministers who contemplated the ultimate establishment of a Jewish State and those who did not. It is obvious in any case that His Majesty's Government could not commit itself to the establishment of the Jewish State. It could only undertake to facilitate the growth of a Home. It would depend mainly on the zeal and enterprise of the Jews, whether the Home would grow big enough to become a State."64/

77. As far as the mandatory Power is concerned, the statement65/ of British policy in Palestine which was issued in June 1922 by Mr. Winston Churchill, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, has remained the authoritative interpretation.

78. Commenting on the above passage and its context, the Royal Commission concluded as follows:

"This definition of the National Home has sometimes been taken to preclude the establishment of a Jewish State. But, though the phraseology was clearly intended to conciliate, as far as might be, Arab antagonism to the National Home, there is nothing in it to prohibit the ultimate establishment of a Jewish State, and Mr. Churchill himself has told us in evidence that no such prohibition was intended."67/​

SOURCE: UNSCOP Report to GA A/364 09/47

Noting that the UNSCOP took the 1922 Churchill White Paper to be the correct interpretation; and not the interpretations expressed in the 1939 White Paper that were manipulated and finally modified to comply with the interpretation of the Permanent Commission on Mandates. Even today, champions of the pro-Palestinian continue to cite the 1939 White Paper; but, ignore the subsequent pronouncements.

(EPILOG)

"The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) completed its mission this evening when, at 11:45 p.m. Geneva Time (6:45 EDT)."

"In the course of the forty-seventh meeting of the Committee on 27 August 1947, seven members of the Committee (Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, the Netherlands, Peru, Sweden and Uruguay), expressed themselves, by recorded vote, in favour of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union, presented by the Working Group on Constitutional Matters."​

This was the backbone in the creation of GA Resolution 181(II).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, I've heard this before.

I think you are blowing a lot of smoke on this issue.

They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE."

But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.

The Avalon Project : British White Paper of 1939

(COMMENT)

You know as well as I do that the 1939 White Paper was overruled by the UN Commission as an incorrect interpretation of policy.


(COMMENT)

The name of the Administrative Region was Palestine. Palestine was not a state and the boundaries of Palestine were artificially set by the Mandate in accordance with the Treaty and the Allied Powers. The assertion you keep making is that there were some international borders that established Palestine as some official sovereignty; there was not.

It is a half truth that "the mandate was not to create a Jewish state in Palestine." A Jewish State was not precluded as a solution.



As you can see (in the interest of full disclosure) that a Jewish State against Arab sentiment was not intended by the Mandatory (UK). In fact, the UK Royal Commission fought on behalf of the Arab to insure the rights of the Arab were taken into consideration. (The Palestinian bit the hand that was helping them.)


(COMMENT)

As you can see, in the previous passage, it was not a Mandate to create the Jewish State (agreed), but it was certainly a Mandate to create the National Home. How the "national Home" is made a reality is exactly the argument. Ultimately, the decision was in the hands of the UNSCOP (UN Special Commission on Palestine).


(COMMENT)

The intention of the Mandate was to create a Jewish National Home. The solution was to create a "Jewish State" as recommended by the UNSCOP.

Let me examine these undertakings further. First, the term "National Home" which is used throughout the Declaration and the mandate, is somewhat ambiguous and has been open to various interpretations. It has been claimed that it meant that Palestine should ultimately become a Jewish State. There can be no doubt that the possibility of a Jewish State was not excluded; it was regarded as a definite possibility by some of the leading statesmen who were familiar with the intentions of those who drew up the Balfour Declaration. Thus President Wilson spoke early in 1919 of laying in Palestine "the foundations of a Jewish Commonwealth", and General Smuts towards the end of the same year foretold an increasing stream of Jewish immigration into the country and "in generations to come a great Jewish State rising there once more". His Majesty's Government accept that the possibility of Palestine becoming a Jewish State was not precluded.

SOURCE: Palestine and Trans-Jordan: Examination of the Annual Report for 1938.

This is not the first time that someone has made this very same challenge. It was made even then (1939), and Mr McDonald answered it twice. Later, it was addressed again by the UNSCOP:

75. Few phrases in history have provoked such lasting contention as "Jewish National Home." Twenty years after the issuance of the Balfour Declaration, the Royal Commission devoted a chapter63/ of its report to a careful appraisal of the relevant texts and historical antecedents in order to clarify the meaning of the phrase.

76. Regarding the political implications of the term "National Home," the finding of the Commission is unequivocal:

"We have been permitted to examine the records which bear upon the question and it is clear to us that the words "the establishment in Palestine of the National Home' were the outcome of a compromise between those Ministers who contemplated the ultimate establishment of a Jewish State and those who did not. It is obvious in any case that His Majesty's Government could not commit itself to the establishment of the Jewish State. It could only undertake to facilitate the growth of a Home. It would depend mainly on the zeal and enterprise of the Jews, whether the Home would grow big enough to become a State."64/

77. As far as the mandatory Power is concerned, the statement65/ of British policy in Palestine which was issued in June 1922 by Mr. Winston Churchill, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, has remained the authoritative interpretation.

78. Commenting on the above passage and its context, the Royal Commission concluded as follows:

"This definition of the National Home has sometimes been taken to preclude the establishment of a Jewish State. But, though the phraseology was clearly intended to conciliate, as far as might be, Arab antagonism to the National Home, there is nothing in it to prohibit the ultimate establishment of a Jewish State, and Mr. Churchill himself has told us in evidence that no such prohibition was intended."67/​

SOURCE: UNSCOP Report to GA A/364 09/47

Noting that the UNSCOP took the 1922 Churchill White Paper to be the correct interpretation; and not the interpretations expressed in the 1939 White Paper that were manipulated and finally modified to comply with the interpretation of the Permanent Commission on Mandates. Even today, champions of the pro-Palestinian continue to cite the 1939 White Paper; but, ignore the subsequent pronouncements.

(EPILOG)

"The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) completed its mission this evening when, at 11:45 p.m. Geneva Time (6:45 EDT)."

"In the course of the forty-seventh meeting of the Committee on 27 August 1947, seven members of the Committee (Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, the Netherlands, Peru, Sweden and Uruguay), expressed themselves, by recorded vote, in favour of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union, presented by the Working Group on Constitutional Matters."​

This was the backbone in the creation of GA Resolution 181(II).

Most Respectfully,
R

All that is neither here nor there. The mandate did not create a Jewish state.

And resolution 181 was not implemented. It did not create a Jewish state.

That is all just so much smoke.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

All that is neither here nor there. The mandate did not create a Jewish state.

(COMMENT)

I don't think I claimed that. I think I documented that the ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration or the Mandate.

And resolution 181 was not implemented. It did not create a Jewish state.

(COMMENT)

I don't think I made this claim. The was no requirement for UNSC approval.

I think I said and documented that UNSCOP Report to GA A/364 09/47 recommended the Partition Plan, and that the Palestinian side adheres to international legitimacy and respects General Assembly Resolution 181 (II), (No UNSC Implementation Required). The UNSCOP recommendation was accepted by the UNGA and the offer was accepted by the Jewish Agency (who declared independence), and the State of Israel was admitted to the UN as a nation on that basis.

I believe, I've pointed out, that the Jewish State was originally offered in Part II, Section B, of UNGA Res 181(II), and that it was accepted and outlined in Annex A, with border.

That is all just so much smoke.

(COMMENT)

Well, you have your opinion.

Most Respectfully,
R