Palestinian villages face demolition to create IDF training ground

**J.Noah ה** · 07-30-2012

Originally Posted by KoTeMoRe

Nope the Argument still stands...Trusteeship unlike Mandates do have a limit in time and scope (IE there was nothing you could do - bar terrorism and armed struggle to make the Mandate cease). Furthermore, again, the LoN/SN was never about making a state. It was typically an autonomous region. Transjordan compes to mind, it being a British Protectorate and all. Really it is simple...

Furthermore, the Jewish population of 1917 was not the one regarded by the Article 22. The Jewish population was specifically singled out by the Balfour declaration (San Remo docet) and most of the settling parties in what would become Palestine, were all regarded in the 1922 Order of mandate as *foreigners*.

So really, a National Home, under mandate cannot be a Nation-State. The Mandate was a cosy way to dress up the spoils of war and have the upper hand on the Arab world. While I am sure most ISraelis and Jews regard it as the act of foundation of their country, they should understand that everything staying stable, there was NEVER going to be a Jewish Nation-State in Palestine under the British Mandate. Therefore it makes little sense using it as reference (especially in a Land Claim issue).

Oh I see, the Mandates of Syria and Mesopotamia were to develop future states but somehow the jewish national homeland was never prescribed for future statehood in the same document.

**KoTeMoRe** · 07-30-2012

Originally Posted by J.Noah ה

Oh I see, the Mandates of Syria and Mesopotamia were to develop future states but somehow the jewish national homeland was never prescribed for future statehood in the same document.

Jesus why are you extrapolating something that thick?

Let us see.

a. Please do find in the Balfour Declaration a timeline for the establishment of a Nation-State.
b. Please do find in the Mandate Text a timeline for the said mandate.
c. Please recall me who had the power to end the said Mandate.
d. Why if the Mandate is SO clear cut, are there the following mentions :

The Zionist Organisation, so long as its organisation and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

How come that, the very agency that is supposed to become/foster the future state can be disowned by the Mandatory power, if the process is a one way affair?

There are little mentions parsed in the different declarations that point to a very obvious agenda from the British...keeping the Palestinian Mandate indefintely.

The other issue regard the status of those *states*... their nature. Some fancy to call them puppet states.

**Nyusu** · 07-30-2012

Originally Posted by Climber

As In many countries, when someone made a settlement in the state property the judicial system decides what to do. Its how a democracy works. Now, if you are derailing the thread and discussing history or the right of Israel as a nation, then I fell the forum have come to a very low. As Dirtydiaper up here says

Well thats actually most important point here. There is exactly one country in the world that sees that territory as Israels state property in first place.

**squidO** · 07-30-2012

Originally Posted by Nyusu

Well thats actually most important point here. There is exactly one country in the world that sees that territory as Israels state property in first place.

It's quite enough.
Besides, it was state property during ottoman rule, British mandate, Jordanian occupation, and remains such under Israeli control.

**GB_FXST** · 07-30-2012

Originally Posted by KoTeMoRe

Nope the Argument still stands...Trusteeship unlike Mandates do have a limit in time and scope (IE there was nothing you could do - bar terrorism and armed struggle to make the Mandate cease). Furthermore, again, the LoN/SN was never about making a state. It was typically an autonomous region. Transjordan compes to mind, it being a British Protectorate and all. Really it is simple...

Furthermore, the Jewish population of 1917 was not the one regarded by the Article 22. The Jewish population was specifically singled out by the Balfour declaration (San Remo docet) and most of the settling parties in what would become Palestine, were all regarded in the 1922 Order of mandate as *foreigners*.

So really, a National Home, under mandate cannot be a Nation-State. The Mandate was a cosy way to dress up the spoils of war and have the upper hand on the Arab world. While I am sure most ISraelis and Jews regard it as the act of foundation of their country, they should understand that everything staying stable, there was NEVER going to be a Jewish Nation-State in Palestine under the British Mandate. Therefore it makes little sense using it as reference (especially in a Land Claim issue).

A National Home can become a Nation State otherwise the term National Home has no meaning.

Originally Posted by Dirtydiaper

... snip ...

Firt of all, Arafath was a lying pice of sh*t that never looked over anything except his own house. That is probably also why he rejected the deal. Secondly; I can see no, none, zero relevance of Arafath's douchbaggery and these Palestinians potential fate, seeing as they are not Arafath.

Go back and re-read posts 12, 29, 36, 40 and 44 to understand why Arafat has direct responsibility.

What I wonder is if 1) Arafat did take Israel's deal, and 2) a Palestinian state was established, whether or not rank and file Palestinians would have theh right to judicial due porcess to appeal government claims of eminent domain? I think not.

**KoTeMoRe** · 07-30-2012

Originally Posted by GB_FXST

A National Home can become a Nation State otherwise the term National Home has no meaning.

Yes it has...just like the Millet system and other Autonomous regions (Biroboidjan). The National Home term means just that, a piece of Land where Jews would naturally go. There is no mention of them being independent (as the Mandate explicitely states).
It can of course become a Nation-State (hence it has), but the Mandate on itself cannot provide a justification for boundaries. They would have been unjust anyway.

Go back and re-read posts 12, 29, 36, 40 and 44 to understand why Arafat has direct responsibility.

What I wonder is if 1) Arafat did take Israel's deal, and 2) a Palestinian state was established, whether or not rank and file Palestinians would have theh right to judicial due porcess to appeal government claims of eminent domain? I think not.

**shelata** · 07-30-2012

Stop bringing up the White Papers of 1939.

Why?? The 1939 white papers is a British official document which offer a complete & clear illustration for Balfour declaration Vague wording. Yet it is not the only one. Following San Remo conference which applied the mandate in April 1922 , UK issued on July 1922 a white paper related to Balfour declaration & its meaning. Here it states :-

Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated,

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1922.asp
So UK clearly denies that Balfour declaration was mean t to establish a Jewish state in Palestine. In more decisive paragraph, the 1922 white paper denies any other nationality for Palestine Jews than Palestinians.

Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status

In other words, Balfour declaration had never called for a Jews state over part or all of Palestine. Jews are encouraged to develop their community as an integral part of Palestine. These Jews shall be regraded as Palestinians with equal rights to the Arab Palestinians.
The 1939 white papers are no different to the 1922 white papers. Again UK government assures that Balfour declaration vague wording of the Jews national home does not mean a state for the Jews.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1939

The White Papers are an illegal document and have nothing to do with the initial Jewish sovereignty.

When these lost their legitimacy ? quote your reference. Further, I would suggest that you stop pushing fabricated expressions like Jewish sovereignty or Jewish home land in real historical statements. Such words were never employed prior to 1947 either by the Zionists or by any international authority.

The San Remo Resolution with the frameworks of Article 22 and the Balfour Declaration gave de jure status to the Jewish people of Palestine legal title and the right to self determination, period.

Where ?? Are you kidding yourself. Just quote the exact words which would prove your claims!!

The ENITRE purpose of the British Mandate was to create a Jewish state in its legal rights

Wrong. My above white papers quotes prove that UK government never called or approved the establishment of a state for the Jews in Palestine.

This statement is in contradiction to the Franco-British Boundaries and Smuts Resolution which legally hacked the official borders of Palestine of its historical borders of its 1st and 2nd Temple period

What do you mean by 1st & 2nd Temple periods ??? Are you pushing here some Biblical stories in this political discussion!! Are you serious ! Are you employing the biblical David & Solomon kingdoms exciting stories as a reference to safeguard your claims for a Jewish state or borders?? Pls, elaborate.

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.

- The right for Jewish self determination.. And can you guess which Article this protects? West Bank

I am astonished how could you interpret Article 2 to be expressing Jewish self determination. You simply convert the phrse of Self-governing institutions into Jews self-rule ! Simultaneously, you failed to see that the destruction of 8no Palestinian villages or the demolition of 540 Palestinian village after 1948 contradict the last sentence of article 2.

British Manadate Preamble:

"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and
Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and
Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and
Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions"

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.

The above quote is in complete conformity with Balfour declaration, 1922 white papers & 1939 white papers. In no sentence does it call for a jewish state. Read again my quoted white papers.

Article 27: The consent of the Council of the League of Nations is required for any modification of the terms of this mandate.

- When did the League of Nations give any consent for all the precluding documents that defamed the Jewish homeland? When did the LoN give permission to cede the Jewish homeland?

when did the league of nations employed the typical words of " Jewish Homeland "??

The international decision does not matter, as the Jewish title was transfered to the Jewish people in Palestine in 1920. No international body can revert or intervene with anything regarding the self determination of the Jewish people, which has been severely violated.

I can not compete with this hilarious reasoning. You refer to the international decisions when you think it suits your claims but you reject them when they clearly bash your claims.
Revisit Balfour declaration, San Remo conference, 1922 white paper & 1939 white papers to realize that you should search for other legitimacy basis for the establishment of a Jewish state. These are offering none.

Do tell, did Egypt accept 194?

Egypt rejected it not because the Refugees do not deserve to return but for other reasons. The Egyptian rejection can not strip the 800,000 Palestinians & their decedents from their rights of return.

The entire crux of Shelata's arguments is that somehow a "national home" means something else, anything else than "nation state".

Balfour declaration is clearly interpreted with this inequality according to the British official documents.

The demolishing of these 8 no Palestinian villages can not be justified based on a claimed Jewish Sovereignty over the West bank. Historically this Sovereignty never existed nor recognized.
Such a claim expresses zeal, revisionism & fabrication.

**GB_FXST** · 07-30-2012