JDC2408, et al, Tell us friend! Just what does the "world" see? (COMMENT) Down to brass tacks: What is the complaint? Most Respectfully, R
Oh dearie me. Your debating has deteriorated. Who would have thought that possible!! Why do I say that? Lets see, HB: That means that you believe that the whole world voted for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in the country of Palestine. Oy vey!! HB, the League consisted of 58 countries at its peak, and you claim that it is balderdash to laugh at your proposal that this number equates to THE WHOLE WORLD. My rebuttal: Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_League_of_Nations # Just for a start, may I point out that the USA was never a member of the League. # Mexico, Germany and Russia were not members when the Mandate was approved. # In fact, to drive a final nail into your balderdash coffin, in 1922 the League had 51 members. At the time there were 162 countries in THE WHOLE WORLD. Can you spot the problem with your math in believing that 51/162 = 1? MYTH BUSTED!!! No need, HB. You see, I have actually READ the Mandate. It mentions Palestine over 60 times. It also mentions the following with stunning clarity: It then goes on to mention COUNTRY in the context of Palestine a further eleven times. So as to avoid any attempted weaselling, may I point out that all major dictionaries use the word Nation in defining the meaning of Country. The League of Nations clearly approved Palestine to be a country/nation. MYTH BUSTED!!! Clang? That means that you claim that Kontorovich was correct in stating that Britain was meant to hand over the Keys for Palestine to the Jews? Are you sure you want to expose your tender regions yet again HB? Readers, see if you can find evidence for the key-transferring ceremony here: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp MYTH BUSTED!!! Oh dear. How fitting that you should chose a kick that so glaringly exposes your gonads to the opponent.
Excellent!!! You are making progress, HB. Now where did it say that a Jewish Homeland in the country of Palestine = a Jewish State, which is the essence of your OP?
The Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Conference, and the Palestine Mandate all give the Jews the right to settle in and build a homeland in Palestine, west of the Jordan. But the rights of non-Jews in that area must be respected. That means that not all the land was given to the Jews. Its absurd to suggest it was.
Well done, Stuntman. A very timely reminder indeed. In that very same Declaration of Independence the Jewish leaders stated the following [source: Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs web site] Yet many Zionists on this forum claim that "181", used by the Zionist leaders to justify their independence, cannot be used likewise by the Palestinians because "181" was never "valid". Can anyone explain why the neo-Zionists are such worlds apart from the Founding Fathers of Israel?
klipkap, Stuntman, et al, Just as a minor point: The forum members seem to use the descriptor "Zionist" quite frequently. I've only been been a member for a few years, and have only noted a few people (none recently) that I could label, if I was predisposed to use that label, as a "Zionist." I've noticed that the PLO Negotiations Affairs Department (NAD) acknowledges that certain political positions evolve over time. They used the phase (as an example) that "Our position on borders has undergone a significant transformation since 1948." So to has the concept of "Zionism." The Zionist of the early 20th Century like Dr Chaim Weizmann, is clearly different from the 21st Century "Zionist," if - in deed - any true "Zionist" are left at all. (COMMENT) We clearly know this is not true either in practice or reality. The Jewish State of Israel was established through the implementation of General Assembly 181(II) in 1948. And it is a matter of reality that the Arab State of Palestine was likewise established through the implementation of General Assembly 181(II) in 1988. At various time, both parties have acknowledged (in practice) the international legitimacy and respects General Assembly Resolution 181 (II), and used the same (in reality) to achieve their political and national aspirations. (COMMENT) I'm not sure what a "neo-Zionist" truly is. Apart from the "Wikipedia" Zionist versus the "Wikipedia" Neo-Zionist, the descriptions seem circular; some some suggesting the people who a belief that the Jewish people have a right to a nation state, equal to the rights of every other people. Surely there is a evolution of the culture here. But I would not make the mistake that the anti-Palestinian or the pro-Israel are any more the same than the nationalistic Israeli is a Neo-Zionist. We simply need to discard some of these old and obsolete labels and say what we mean in straight forward language. I'm not sure that Neo-Zionist labeled people actually agree amongst themselves, what a Neo-Zionist is, and if they even have a common political platform. Most Respectfully, R
The passage you highlighted : It means that the "Palestinians" can justify their independence, But they dont do it, furthermore dont forget that the Arabs rejected 181 with the support from the Arab League. If one man said that Liverpool is a worthless team, cant now claim that they are the best team in England, or in other words- they cant accepte something they already disagreed with. Olmert one tme suggested to Abu-Mazen the most generous offer ever that a Israeli prime minister ever suggested to the Arabs, and Abu-Mazen didnt signed it.
Ronstar, et al, I agree in part. (COMMENT) What I agree with: No question about it. The Allied Powers had no intention of hurt the indigenous Arab or other non-Jewish populations, at the expense of a Jewish National Home (whatever solution that came to fruition). What I disagree with: The Balfour Declaration, ----- the San Remo Conference, nor the Palestine Mandate extend any specific authoritative "rights" to the Jewish people. The Balfour Declaration was neither an independent authority or a directive. It was an expression of intent to extend its "best endeavors" to facilitate the achievement of a "national home for the Jewish people." The San Remo Convention was more multifaceted, yet still not a independent authority or a directive extending any special rights to the Jewish People. The San Remo Convention was an agreement to attempt to achieve the facilitation of the Balfour Declaration of a "national home for the Jewish people." The San Remo Convention was an agreement on the framework (the Mandate) to bring meaning to Article 22 of the Covenant. The Mandate was the product of the San Remo Convention and the League of Nation authority for the assigned Mandatory. 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 was not authorized. That is why an additional authority [GA/RES/181(II)] was required. There were a few "rights" addressed (civil and religious rights): rights and of securing free access to the Holy Places, religious buildings and sites and the free exercise of worship, Moslem sacred shrines maintain its own schools for the education of its own members financial obligations legitimately incurred public servants to pensions or gratuities But nothing else specifically. It has always been assumed that civil property rights were included. And still today, that assumption seems valid. But as to your assertion that some special "rights" (as opposed to discretionary authority) for the Jewish People were given would not be accurate. Most Respectfully, R
I am sorry, but the middle bit is a logical fallacy, albeit a common one. Let us say you voted in your country to reject free health care but that a majority voted in favour. Does that mean that, after the bill is ratified, you are not entitled to free health care? Seems like a popular but baseless position to me.
A logical interpretation of the essence of the Mandate, Rocco. So why are there so many Zionists [I use that word for active and vigorous supporters of a Jewish state in the Middle East and defender of the process to date; which means that a Zionist is not necessarily a Jew] on this forum convinced that the Mandate gave the Jews their own State (country/nation)? The Mandate is just so utterly clear that a Jewish homeland in the country of Palestine was the basic goal. Permit me a disagreement. The prologue, as setting the scene for what follows, contemplates a Jewish homeland. But there is no need to assume that civil rights (especially of the Palestinians) were not entrenched with crystal clarity - "it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". This was one of the main reasons for the Arab League to call for the referral of UNGA 181 to the International Court of Justice, as catered for in Article 26 of the Mandate. The UN then voted itself the right to violate this piece of international law, so the Arabs voted against 181 - quite rightly so in my layman's opinion.
Hi Drew. You make a good point about the fuzziness between true military and reserve forces. I am sure the World Court has an opinion as to whether they can really be regarded as being more civilian or more military. But be that as it may, the answer is of course to station them in one's own territory. Unless of course if the REAL intention [wink] is to salami slice your way into "facts on the ground", i.e. territory that is not legally yours. Regarding the targeting by Palestinians of Israeli civilians, have you chosen to totally ignore the facts shown on this forum that in the case of Egypt 1956, Syria 1966, Lebanon 1966, Egypt 1967, Lebanon 1982, Gaza 2008, Gaza 2012, it was Israel who was the main aggressor. Before you claim that this is a pack of Jew-hating lies, please return to http://www.politicalforum.com/middle-east/313440-who-did-invading-borat.html
klipkap, et al, We agree on some aspect here. (COMMENT) There are a couple aspects of the Mandate that are misunderstood; ---- let's clarify them. The Mandate was not a "law." It was a directive and an authority. It was a directive from the Allied Powers and League of Nations to the Mandatory (UK). It was not intended to be interpreted by external influences outside the process. It is not a fundamental law to be used by other than the three parties under which the Mandate applies. The Allied Powers and the League of Nations speak to the Mandatory through this document; not the Arab People and the the Jewish People. The Mandate is an authority from the membership of in the League of Nations. It speaks directly to the Mandatory about the expectations the membership has in the Administration of the territory and the people over which the League gave the Mandatory responsibility. The authority, permissions and limitations in the Mandate apply only to the Mandatory; not the Arab People or the Jewish People. The Mandate was not a tool for either the Arab or the Jewish people to use, but a basic guide under which the Mandatory functioned; intended for the Mandatory and not the Arab or Jewish People. The Mandate, written by the League and Allied Powers, was not unchangeable. The Allied Powers and the League could mold it to address specific needs through The Palestine Order in Council. The Mandate was not a set of laws like the "Ten Commandments." The tenants could be shaped. Finally, the recommendations by the UN Special Committee on Palestine and the subsequent Resolution adopted by the General Assembly of 1947 was not implemented under the Mandate. It was coordinated to be implemented after the termination of the Mandate. GA/RES/181(II) and the establishment of the Jewish State was implemented under the UN Trustee Program and NOT the League Covenant Mandate Program. The phrase "Jewish National Home" is not a single entity concept; but a diverse collection of potentials. A national home is a open ended set in which a number of possible political solutions are described without being preferential or specific to one over another. A single state, safe haven territory in which Jewish People were free to immigrate without objection is one possible "national home" solution. A union of the Arab and Jewish political interest created either by treaty or an adopted common constitution, with the central government being required to provide support for all members. A federated state in which the political entities (Arab and Jewish) make a formation characterized by a union of partially self-governing regions (states or provinces) under a central government; with a the division of power between the Arab and Jewish constituents --- each contributing to a central government. The two-state solution, in which the territory is divided and each constituent (Arab and Jewish) independently form individual and autonomous sovereignties. (COMMENT) Where is this "crystal clarity." Other than the rights listed in the Mandate itself, where are these crystal clear rights identified? One of the problems with the discussion is that the participants to the discussion use terms like "civil and religious rights" which are undefined. And being undefined, have very little meaning. In Posting #109 with our friend "Ronstar," I discuss the "rights" (civil and religious) the original authors specifically identified as needing protection; and list them. Just because the Arab Palestinian does not like and approve the outcome, does not mean that they can invoke the "might prejudice the civil and religious rights" clause of the Mandate (not withstanding the fact that the Mandate was not even applicable to the Partition Plan). If an action was taken that the Arab Palestinian believes is "prejudicial" --- then it needs to be stated, what action was "prejudicial" and what "specific1920's right" was violated; and where that right is codified as a "right." (COMMENT) Article 26 of the Mandate [invoking the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over a dispute with the Mandate], and the implementation of General Assembly Resolution 181(II) (Steps Preparatory to Independence) are mutually exclusive issues. One deals with Mandate era disputes and one deals with Trustee era resolute action. None the less, the case received judicial attention. There is no law, treaty or covenant that prevents or prohibits the League or the General Assembly from altering, modifying, changing or reinterpreting a resolution or mandate. Just as noting prevents your current government from doing the same with domestic law, ordinances, statutes, or regulations. Most Respectfully, R
The Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Conference, and the Mandate for Palestine ALL declared that Jewish settlement in palestine and the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine was conditional upon the full respect and protection of non-Jewish civil and religious rights in the same area. NOWHERE does it say "all the land is given to the Jews exclusively". Such an idea is a dishonest and bigoted myth.
Ronstar, et al, A comprehension problem. (COMMENT) The former territory under the Mandate of Palestine is not "exclusively" Jewish. To suggest that the constituents of the pro-Israeli movement promote that is "a dishonest and bigoted myth." The pro-Palestinian movement keeps screaming "protection of non-Jewish civil and religious rights." Well: What were those rights in 1948? and How were they violated? How has the last 66 years of Hostile Arab Palestinian violence changed that paradigm for the betterment of the Palestinian? How has the last 66 years of Hostile Arab Palestinian violence improved the conditions of the Palestinian? Most Respectfully, R
Neo-Zionists on this forum are claiming that Balfour, San Remo, and the Mandate gave the Jews EXCLUSIVE rights to all land between the river and the sea. this is false, as you know.
Ronstar, et al, I actually agree! (COMMENT) I recognize the legitimacy of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Declaration of Independence (Nov 1988 ) and the establishment of the Arab State of Palestine, in the land of Palestine (Gaza Strip and West Bank within the 1949 Armistice Lines as amended by the Peace Treaties between Israel and the Arab States of Jordan and Egypt) with its capital at (East) Jerusalem. I also recognize the need to contain and quarantine (Occupation) the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) and the threat they pose to the safety and security of the Israeli people. I also recognize the need to establish defensible borders to prevent incursions into the sovereignty of the Jewish State of Israel. I also recognize the need to strengthen and make best possible use of the capacities in areas such as conflict prevention, negotiation, mediation, conciliation, judicial settlement, rule of law, peacekeeping and peace building, in order to contribute to the successful prevention and peaceful resolution of prolonged unresolved conflicts. I also recognize the need to cooperate fully in the fight against Article 13 Palestinian Jihadists and Article 9/10 Fedayeen, in accordance with our obligations under international law, in order to find, deny safe haven and bring to justice, on the basis of the principle of extradite or prosecute, any person who supports, facilitates, participates or attempts to participate in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or provides safe havens. I am given the impression that the HoAP does not hold similar views. Most Respectfully, R
Thats why I wrote that the Arabs can today justify their independence, but they dont do it, how? in every agreement that Israel was trying to sign with the Arabs the Arabs rejected it, even after Israel offered them every thing they wanted, furthermore in the latest negotiation Kerry offered the Arabs: * The Arab capotal will be in Jerusalem- they rejected it, * That all of the Palestinian refugees will come back to the Arab country in the West Bank- they rejected it. * The bourders of the future Arab country will be in 67' lines- they rejected it. * The future Arab state would be a country for the Palestinian people- they rejected it. * The settlers will not be fully evecuated- the Arabs in the latest nagotiation agreed with Israel that only some of the settelments will be evecuated and not all- so they already accepted it and the rejected it NICE! It was all paragraphs that the Arabs always said it will have to happen but in reality they didnt accept it, NICE!
http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-...east-J-lem-recognition-of-Jewish-state-339704 Another source- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...an-to-recognise-Israel-as-a-Jewish-state.html DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE PRIME MINISTER OF ISRAEL SAID ABOUT THIS PLAN? HERE YOU GO: Source- http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/diplomania/.premium-1.570836 PLEASE DONT SAY SOMETHING WRONG IF YOU NEVER CHECKED IT!
the Kerry plan was never revealed. there is no way it would have given the Arabs all of the West Bank. there is no way it would have given the Arabs all of East Jerusalem. so your claim is bogus.
Please instead deny something right, refer the Links that regarding to Kerry's plan instead of repeating yourself. Here is what the Palestinian said about Kerry's plan: Source: http://www.imemc.org/article/66765 STOP DENAYING THE FACTS!
you have no evidence that Kerry offered the Palestinians all of East Jerusalem or all of the West Bank. its just a baseless claim. The Palestinians would never refuse such an offer.
According to your reference, "The "Kerry Plan" is likely to be unveiled soon" So Ronstar is correct. Your latest reference is in direct conflict with what you originally claimed - "what Kerry is proposing is a Palestinian state that has ... no borders," How can that be a serious proposal? Could you clarify please. What has actually been proposed? What are the borders? In fact, what is the geographical definition of the State of Israel, or does it remain a moving feast?
A comprehension problem. What the Mandate promised was " the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. Later in the document Palestine is referred to as a country" So Palestine (or parts of it) was never designated to be a future Jewish country/state/nation. Your use of the word "territory" as a substitute does not promote clarity in your thesis. The pro-Israeli movement clearly promotes the establishment of a country within what was intended to be a single country - Palestine. And therein lies the original problem.
