Peace Talks - Will Israel Really Withdraw?

I skipped over it, because like most of the garbage you write, it is not worthy of attention.

So now, since the UN declarations do not coincide with what you want, the UN resolutions don't count? Or do they only count when you want them to?

The Partition plan gave the jews a definitive sovereign homeland. Don't like it - tough titty.

 

The partitian plan by the United Nations was a recommendation but it was never accepted by all parties.

What most people do accept is a fait accompli that the nation of Israel was established by tyranny which violated the Rights of the non-Jewish population. It cannot be undone 80 years later and we can accept that. It has absolutely nothing to do with UN Resolutions or whether the creation of Israel was "legal" because it clearly violated the British Mandate for Palestine which established that the civil and religious Rights of the non-Jewish population couldn't be violated.

It's sort of like Europeans coming to the Americas and stealing the land from the native-American Indians. It wasn't right and it wasn't legal but it happened. Israel is in much the same position. The Jewish immigrants stole part of Palestine from the Arabs and created a country. It was wrong but it happened and can't be undone 80 years later.

 

The governing authority in the area, both the UK, then the UN, authorized the state of israel. How someone can possibly claim otherwise at this point is simply absurd.

Since the arabs were represented in the UN vote, no one can conclude that they were not part of the process to split the area.

If you do not recognize israeli, then you cannot recognize any of the other nations drawn from the mandate, including syria, lebanon, and jordan.

 

I always wonder about false statements that can be so easily disproven.

On Nov 29, 1947 the UN General Assembly (not the Security Council) passed UN Resolution 181 that recommended a partition plan and the ending of the British Mandate. That recommendation was accepted by the Jewish Agency as the representative of the Jewish residents of Palestine but was rejected by the Palestine Arab Higher Committee as the representative of the Arab citizens of Palestine. The recommendation was therefore moot because the both parties would have been required to accept it.

With no plan for a transitional government in place the British unilaterally declared their intention to withdraw from Palestine by May 15, 1948. During the withdrawal the British refused to hand over either territory or authorty to any successor. On May 14th, the day before the final departure of the British the Jewish community issued a Declaration of Independence.

The United Nations did not authorized or condoned the actions by the Jewish community of Palestine in it's Declaration of Independence.

Don't they teach the Israeli history in Israel?

 

You're still claiming that the Balfour Declaration did not offer a jewish homeland and nation, 80 years after it was legally understood and accepted.

Don't they teach Americans history?

 

You have been turned over so many times by so many people who have provided reams of evidence that you are wrong and still you persist. Your posts are becoming a joke fella..you were wrong.get over it and move on, just repeating the same crap is not going to make it true..

 

Andthe Balfour Declaration has zero relevance to the current issue.

Israel is a state. No one is trying to take that away.

Palestine is going to be a state. Israel can try all it wants, but it is inevitable.

The simple fact of the matter is that Palestine is full of Arab Palestinians, and making that territory part of Israel would fundamentally undermine Israel's Jewish identity. Cleansing the Palestinians of its Arab population is simply not acceptable to a people that experinced the violence of teh Halocaust.

This is about two peoples from the same land that have to figure out how to shar ethat land.

The Balfour document has zero bearing on that process. It isn't even an explanation for how we got where we are today, and it offer zero solutions to CURRENT problems.

Its like trying to solve modern day transnational crime by talking about Ceasar. I suppose at some point Ceasar dealth with crime and that is part of thread of history that got us here. But we are here now and current problems require feasible solutions - not dead treaties or dusty bits of paper.

Real people will live or die based on the decisions made in this peace process, and it would be best if the parties kept that in mind.

Peace or war is weightier decision than legalese from dead tomes. The people deserve better. They deserve peace, and they deserve workable solutions and compromises to get them there.

 

You miss the point of the debate by flying into the thread on page 36...

The jewhaters are claiming that there is no legal basis in any document providing jews with standing for a sovereign homeland, which is patently absurd.

As for the arabs, notice how the the vast majority of jews accept an arab homeland alongside a jewish one - but the vast majority of the arabs want all jews either ethnically cleansed from the middle east, to suffer as dhimmis under arab rule, or exterminated.

 

Absolutely!! We vehemently claim that 'Balfour' did NOT provide a NATION to the Jews. And we note that yet again you use the word 'nation' which you pull out of your back pocket because you are still clearly unable to provide documented evidence in law of this mantra that you keep on repeating. NOWHERE can you put a finger on such an authorisation before 1947. We watch you and see you wriggle in your inability, and yet you continue to claim that it is so.

Whereas the opposite to what you claim CAN be proved WITH documentary evidence. But it is not only the nails in the coffin of your claim that are provided by the words of the San Remo resolution and by those of the Mandate for Palestine, but ALSO in the policy statement of the key player in Palestine at the time - Great Britain. So let me SHOW YOU that evidence and prove that your inability to do likewise makes your claim more empty that a used tin can:

To put that third nail in your coffin - ‘1922 approval of a sovereign Jewish state’ - let us turn to the words of the one man who had more to do with this shaping of the Mandate than any single other person, namely the Secretary of State for the Colonies. His name was Winston Churchill. His views on the meaning of the Balfour Declaration and what was being done in 1922 are contained in the Churchill White Paper which can be found here.

1) Here is a key extract from that document: “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." HMG regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view.” So, Wersted and HBendor, where in that official view of Her Majesty’s government do you see even the slightest vestige of support for your claims that a sovereign Jewish state was being approved in 1922?

2) For those who still see amongst these crystal clear words the intention to approve a Jewish state, let us go further with the following except from the same 1922 White Paper: “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.” If there is anyone who can STILL see in this the intention to approve a sovereign Jewish state, please explain how ‘a state can be created in a state’ in which all citizens have the right to (the same) nationality. Hello!!

3) Still the same White Paper: “…at the meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development." Here is something very important from the Zionist leadership; ‘together to make’ – this is a future action; ‘an undisturbed national development’ – this is a future wish. In other words the Zionists fully realised at the time that nation building was to happen at some stage in the FUTURE. How could they therefore later claim that approval for a sovereign Jewish state was given in 1922?

4) Still not convinced?; here come the killer: “…it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian. Now could one of the Zionist apologists explain to us how Jews could be citizens of a sovereign Jewish state and also of Palestine, all at the same time? Clearly the only nation being contemplated at that time was Palestine and all peoples would be citizens of it. So where does that leave the sovereign Jewish state? RIIIIGGHT ... somewhere in the future. In 1947 to be precise.

5) So that there can be zero remaining doubt, one last excerpt: “When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine…”

So I ask you again, Wersted and HBendor, can you provide anything of similar weight, referencing and verifiability in approved international law to compare with the British White Paper, the words of the San Remo resolution, and the actual League of Nations approval as it exists in the Mandate for Palestine. If you can, then do so. I f you can't, and we shall see in a few short days, then .....

 

The Balfour Letter said only that the British wouldn't have a problem with establishing IN Palestine a national home for the Jewish people, (which does not equate to a sovereign state of Palestine).....and if they were ever in the position to do something about that they would try to make it happen. You see, in 1917, they were not in a position to offer anything as substantive as a Jewish Sovereign state on somebody else's land.

The Balfour letter only became legal after the incorporation of the concept in the Mandate for Palestine...until then it was no more than a woolly aspiration. And the legal incorporation in the Mandate for Palestine still did not offer a Sovereign standalone state for Jews, any more than the letter did.

Why else do you think the Letter and thus the Mandate fell short of Zionist expectations...if not because they had asked for the reconstitution of Palestine as “the” Jewish national home..and that was not what they got. At least the early Zionists knew the differences between the definite and indefinite article.

 

While the discussion of the British Mandate and the Balfour accords are interesting they really have no relevance to this discussion of establishing an Israeli-Palestinian peace today. Israel exists and has since 1948.

If we are addressing a peace accord between Israel and Palestine then it is not about the initial foundation of Israel as no peace agreement will ever be reached which calls for the dissolution of the State of Israel.

The valid issues that can be addressed can be summarized as follows:

1) The violations of the civil rights of non-Jewish citizens/residents that were violated during the establishment of the State of Israel. The United Nations estimates that over 700,000 non-Jewish residents fled the territory that became Israel as refugees and were denied their natural Right of citizenship and a Right of Return to the homeland of their birth. Additionally approximately 18% of the lands in Israel was confiscated from the non-Jewish population violating their Rights of Property. A peace agreement cannot be reached unless the violation of the Rights of Individuals are addressed and resolved.

2) The acquisition of territory by war predominately resulting from the 1967 6-Day War and thereafter where Israel invaded and occupied territories that were not a part of Israel. A valid argument can be made that the territory of Israel should be defined based upon the 1949 Armistice Agreements between Israel, Jordan, Egypt, and Syria.

3) The full and unqualified acceptance by both Israel and the Palestinians of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the Right to live in peace of both Israel and Palestine.

These are the issued that need to be addressed today.

UN Resolution 242 establishes the foundation for items 2 and 3 and item 1 is a matter of civil Rights that Israel needs to address if it wants peace with the Palestinians.

That is what this thread is about.

 

This point is the same one I've been stating, that the sovereign jewish nation would be carved out of a PART of the mandate - that some of the land would go to the jews - and some to the arabs, a fact affirmed in the partition plan.

Thanks for sharing.

 

The early zionists wanted ALL of the land - most, if not all, of the ENTIRE mandate - when instead they ended up being only promised a PART of the region.

 

Violated by whom? Their arab leadership for opting for war instead of continued negotiation, like arafat after 2000?

Who forced them to flee?

And given that they supported the arab invasion to slaughter the jews, WTF are they "entitled" to anything?

Fact of the matter is that they aren't.

What "right" is that? And what about the over 1 million jews ethnically cleansed from arab muslim nations?

Stop pretending to be concerned with human rights issues when you fail to mention this.

When the arabs refused the partition plan, then they forfeited their legal claim to the property, since they rejected the only governing authority authorized to grant their rights - the UN.

Jewhaters seem to want it both ways, the arabs can continue to conduct war and reject treaties, yet when they lose - they still get to retain rights to everything they had before, PLUS what they wanted to achieve through the war. Life doesn't work that way.

A treaty cannot be achieved until the arabs end their warlike aims and goals of slaughtering and subverting the jews.

This lie was already proven wrong.

As i said above, the arabs rejected those lines, and they are invalid. They had a chance to retain them - and opted for war instead.

A treaty cannot be achieved until the arabs end their warlike aims and goals of slaughtering and subverting the jews. As long as the arabs's goal is to subvert all non-muslims in the middle east, there will never be peace there.

They have been destroying civilizations and cultures for centuries, and it continues to this day.

 

No you have been stating that the mandate and declaration offered the Jews a sovereign state and you have been proven wrong about 20 times in this very thread by many posters..

 

But they got what they were promised in 1917.........a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. There were no promises.....not one made as to how Palestine was to be divided up or into how many pieces...although there have been, and are still being, plenty of assumptions made by the Zionists.

Which is exactly what will happen when agreement is reached between Israel and the Palestinians, is it not?

 

From your response I conclude the following:

1) You continue to substitute 'nation' for 'homeland' and to pretend that your slight-of-hand represents scholarly debate. Well it doesn't. It is just as much a fraudulent debating scam as it was when we first started. You are now worthy of being utterly ignored on this topic since you have shown that you are incapable of debating honestly where this topic is involved.

2) In fact, your scam has just gone even further. You submit above in essence that "a Jewish homeland will not be created in all of the mandate" means the same as "a Jewish nation is approved in part of the mandate". Do you have any appreciation of the depth of your logical fallacy? What an insult it is to see such shoddy reasoning offered up as serious debate?

So, to get back to where this started:

Yes, they do teach history, and some of us actually understand what is being taught as opposed to what is being invented.

And yes, we are clearly claiming that neither ‘Balfour’ nor any of the 1922 documents granted nationhood to the Jews. With overwhelming and fully referenced evidence in support, that Myth has once again been totally busted!! It was a pleasure to share.

 

That is correct, wersted, Jewish nationhood came to be in 1947. In 1947!! That creation of the Jewish state in 1947 is in total contrast to the nationhood approval that you ascribed to the Balfour declaration (and that other Zionist-supporting posters ascribe to 'San Remo' or to the 1922 LoN Mandate approval). This means that the only legal standing that the State of Israel has, is provided by the combination of the Mandate holder's promise to abide by the outcome of 181.

On this forum, Zionist supporters have often claimed, as have so-called experts such as Grieff, that 181 is not legally binding. It is further claimed that that is irrelevant because Jewish nationhood was approved in 1922.

Now here comes the ironic bit. IF these Zionist supporters are correct regarding 181 plus the fact, as has been shown here in recent post, that no nationhood approval was given in 1917 or 1922, then what does this mean for the legality of Israel? If I were the Zionists, I would stop trying to prove that 1947 was void, because they could end up REALLY shooting themselves in the foot. But that means that they have to face up to the reality of the terms of 181 and that sticks in their craw.

Of course, as Shiva has already pointed out a dozen times, what happened in 1922 is irrelevant regarding Israel's nation status, because this was granted legally granted in 1947. This is so because the mandate holder pledged adherence to the outcome of 181.

So if we agree that the 1922 scam has been settled and that we can move on to 1947, here are my two questions to the forum:

1) Why did the Arab nations not claim that the approval of the Jewish State (the Partition) was illegal and demand that the proposal (181) be referred to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion?

2) Who was the 'owner'/holder/custodian of the non-Jewish part of the Mandate for Palestine after November 1947 (date of the Partition approval)? Who was the holder after 15th May 1948 (date of British physical withdrawal from the Mandate), or alternatively, after 1st August 1948 (date of termination of the Mandate)? And what became of these 'custodianships'?

[Moderator: Is this sufficiently off-topic to warrant a separate thread? If so, no problem.]

 

As yr friend shiva above admitted, the balfour dec has been accepted in legal and diplomatic circles for 80 years as an assurance ot the jewish people as a sovereign jewish state to be re-constituted in the mandate region.

The balfour letter was an initial step towards that end goal, whose details were to be worked out and finalized later. You can obfuscate and whine and scream all day, but in the end you cannot change history, nor re-interpret it that way YOU want it to be.

That is the plan, but given how arab muslims will not accept the rights of minority groups in the middle east, even with a solid, signed, and publicly-recognized document clarifying final status of all issues, the large number of arab rejectionists and the iranian criminal fascist regime whose sole existence is based upon exporting terrorism and violence, will do everything in their power to undermine the treaty. Just as they are doing now through their puppet hamas, whose endless barrage of rockets at israel continues daily.

 

I've noticed on this forum that the louder the psychotic arab supporters scream with large and larger fonts, usually in color, declaring "their victory," the weaker and more failing their argument.

Why don't you explain to us how interpreting the balfour declaration as to providing for a jewish home IN the region somehow negates ALL other interpretations of the document?

 

Pretty sure he never said that...actually show us where he said that..I bet you cannot.

 

His arguments blow yours away all the time, comes from him doing research and knowing what he is talking about and you just waffling zionist rubbish..

 

One of the supporting evidence that is so crushingly difficult for the arab terror apologists to abide by, is that the partition plan did not occur in a legal vaccum; it had multiple prior documents such as balfour that occurred as standing legal structures upon which to build.

The partition plan was merely a defining of the borders of the 2 nation-states referred to by prior documents.

Wrong, the partition plan gave defined, tangible legal standing to the borders of both jewish and arab muslim nations.

Uh, wrong. The partition plan builds upon prior legal documentation.

Personally, this whole exercise I find repugnant, that racist jewhaters pretending to have some interest in the history using it as a fig leaf to try to undermine the state of israel.

It is as incredibly disgusting as the attack by the 5 arab muslim armies in May 1948 on people who had basically been massacred for 5 years prior by one of the world's worst regimes - until the khmer rouge and the current iranian one came into existence.

The obscene intolerance of arab muslims and refusal to accept the rights of other people is above comprehension, that they continue to this day to oppress minorities all over the middle east is testament to this racial supremist doctrine which they seem to thrive upon for nourishment.

It can be compared to the persistent "declarations of victory" here postulated by weak, ignorant posters on this forum who know they haven't the slightest chance of success, but know deep down they are unsuccessful people spewing bile on a public forum as a means of shading their real-world failures.

 

No nation states referred to in the Balfour declaration, you have been proven wrong on that claim again and again but keep trotting out the same old stale crap..