Home
Gallery
Search
Register
Log in
About Us & Rules1939 Palestinian Flag. What does it look like? Surprised?
3 posters
Page 1 of 1
1939 Palestinian Flag. What does it look like? Surprised?
by Guest Mon Nov 09, 2015 8:37 am
This a Larousse French dictionary from 1939. In the appendix it lists all the then current flags of the world in alphabetical order. You’ll notice that for Germany at that time the flag was the Nazi one replete with Zwastika which proves that this was pre-1945 ( before 1945) ! .
Now, alphabetically, look for the Palestinian Flag. YES , there is one. What does it look like? Surprised? Oh, but you thought (Mandate Jewish) Palestine was an Islamic Arab-,Turkish-, Circassian Sovereign State that the bad Jews took over , right?
Confused?
From 1920-1948 a ( class ‘A’ Mandate) State of Palestine existed as per international law but it was, as all of its major institutions, Jewish. Until the 1960s, name “Palestine” resonated as something Jewish to peoples ears. The 4,000 year old Jewish homeland or “Land of Israel” or the “Holy Land” were all synonymous!!
The British as legal Mandatory over the Mandate managed or mismanaged the state partially with Jewish Auxilary until Jews regained official sovereignty in 1948, by declaring independence.
The U.N. did not recreate Israel as some people claim.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp
http://www.factualisrael.com/1939-palestinian-flag-look-like-surprised/#
Guest- Guest
Re: 1939 Palestinian Flag. What does it look like? Surprised?
by Tommy Monk Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:06 pm
Interesting...
Tommy Monk- Forum Detective ????♀️
- Posts : 26319
Join date : 2014-02-12
Re: 1939 Palestinian Flag. What does it look like? Surprised?
by Guest Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:43 pm
Flag of Mandatory Palestine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Union Jack
Palestine maritime ensign
During the British Mandate for Palestine from 1920 until 1948, the de facto flag was the Union Jack or Union Flag of the United Kingdom, but several localized flags existed for Mandate government departments and government officials. The only Palestine-specific flag not restricted to official government use was the Palestine ensign (red with the Union Flag in the canton, and a white circle on the fly with the mandate's name inside it), which was flown by ships registered in the British Mandate territory during the period 1927–1948. This flag had an extremely limited use on land, and was not embraced by either the Arabs or the Jews of the Palestine mandate territory. It was based on the British Red Ensign (civil ensign) instead of the Blue Ensign (used as the basis for the flags of nearly all other British-ruled territories in Africa and Asia), since it was only intended for use at sea by non-government ships.[1][2]
Palestinian Flag according to flag chart from Nouveau Petit Larousse Illustré, 1924
The use of Zionist or Hebrew flags in Mandatory Palestine was common but controversial.[unreliable source?][3] These flags were never recognized by the British authorities,[citation needed] but their use did lead some sources[who?] to erroneously[citation needed] claim that they were the official flag of Palestine. The French dictionary Le Petit Larousse Illustré contained a world flag section which, from 1924 to 1939, showed the flag of Palestine as a yellow Star of David on a blue and white background.[4] No other source[original research?] cites this as the flag of Palestine at the time, so it is unclear how Le Petit Larousse Illustré chose this flag, however it does closely resemble some of the flags which were used on Jewish shipping vessels at the time,[unreliable source?][5] and which eventually developed into the modern Flag of Israel.[citation needed][original research?]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Mandatory_Palestine
He does love his hasbara and swallows it in large doses.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Union Jack
Palestine maritime ensign
During the British Mandate for Palestine from 1920 until 1948, the de facto flag was the Union Jack or Union Flag of the United Kingdom, but several localized flags existed for Mandate government departments and government officials. The only Palestine-specific flag not restricted to official government use was the Palestine ensign (red with the Union Flag in the canton, and a white circle on the fly with the mandate's name inside it), which was flown by ships registered in the British Mandate territory during the period 1927–1948. This flag had an extremely limited use on land, and was not embraced by either the Arabs or the Jews of the Palestine mandate territory. It was based on the British Red Ensign (civil ensign) instead of the Blue Ensign (used as the basis for the flags of nearly all other British-ruled territories in Africa and Asia), since it was only intended for use at sea by non-government ships.[1][2]
Zionist Flags in Mandatory Palestine
Palestinian Flag according to flag chart from Nouveau Petit Larousse Illustré, 1924
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Mandatory_Palestine
He does love his hasbara and swallows it in large doses.
Guest- Guest
Re: 1939 Palestinian Flag. What does it look like? Surprised?
by Guest Mon Nov 09, 2015 12:46 pm
Excellent so it was clearly recognised by other nations, just not the British which is on no surprise.
Guest- Guest
Re: 1939 Palestinian Flag. What does it look like? Surprised?
by Guest Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:13 pm
however it does closely resemble some of the flags which were used on Jewish shipping vessels at the time
ie, ships of a company owned by Jews. Oh dear.
ie, ships of a company owned by Jews. Oh dear.
Guest- Guest
Re: 1939 Palestinian Flag. What does it look like? Surprised?
by Guest Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:41 pm
Again it was recognised, the fact of which escapes you
Guest- Guest
Re: 1939 Palestinian Flag. What does it look like? Surprised?
by Guest Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:42 pm
Plus you misss the most important part
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp
Guest- Guest
Re: 1939 Palestinian Flag. What does it look like? Surprised?
by Guest Mon Nov 09, 2015 2:19 pm
Fuzzy Zack wrote:Lol! I thought you said Palestine never existed
Make your mind up.
Interesting, do you always invent things not said by people?
Guest- Guest
Re: 1939 Palestinian Flag. What does it look like? Surprised?
by Guest Mon Nov 09, 2015 2:20 pm
Oh dear, poor Didge obviously never read the British 1939 White paper clearing up what was meant by the 1922 paper. From the same source as well lol
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. That Palestine was not to be converted into a Jewish State might be held to be implied in the passage from the Command Paper of 1922 which reads as follows
"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 .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. 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 nature of the Jewish National Home in Palestine was further described in the Command Paper of 1922 as follows
"During the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community now numbering 80,000, of whom about one fourth are farmers or workers upon the land. This community has its own political organs; an elected assembly for the direction of its domestic concerns; elected councils in the towns; and an organisation for the control of its schools. It has its elected Chief Rabbinate and Rabbinical Council for the direction of its religious affairs. Its business is conducted in Hebrew as a vernacular language, and a Hebrew press serves its needs. It has its distinctive intellectual life and displays considerable economic activity. This community, then, with its town and country population, its political, religious and social organisations, its own language, its own customs, its own life, has in fact `national' characteristics. 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 as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and pride. But in order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognised to rest upon ancient historic connection."
His Majesty's Government adhere to this intepretation of the (Balfour) Declaration of 1917 and regard it as an authoritative and comprehensive description of the character of the Jewish National Home in Palestine. It envisaged the further development of the existing Jewish community with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world. Evidence that His Majesty's Government have been carrying out their obligation in this respect is to be found in the facts that, since the statement of 1922 was published, more than 300,000 Jews have immigrated to Palestine, and that the population of the National Home has risen to some 450,000, or approaching a third of the entire population of the country. Nor has the Jewish community failed to take full advantage of the opportunities given to it. The growth of the Jewish National Home and its acheivements in many fields are a remarkable constructive effort which must command the admiration of the world and must be, in particular, a source of pride to the Jewish people.
In the recent discussions the Arab delegations have repeated the contention that Palestine was included within the area in which Sir Henry McMahon, on behalf of the British Government, in October, 1915, undertook to recognise and support Arab independence. The validity of this claim, based on the terms of the correspondence which passed between Sir Henry McMahon and the Sharif of Mecca, was thoroughly and carefully investigated by the British and Arab representatives during the recent conferences in London. Their report, which has been published, states that both the Arab and the British representatives endeavoured to understand the point of view of the other party but that they were unable to reach agreement upon an interpretation of the correspondence. There is no need to summarize here the arguments presented by each side. His Majesty's Government regret the misunderstandings which have arisen as regards some of the phrases used. For their part they can only adhere, for the reasons given by their representatives in the Report, to the view that the whole of Palestine west of Jordan was excluded from Sir Henry McMahon's pledge, and they therefore cannot agree that the McMahon correspondence forms a just basis for the claim that Palestine should be converted into an Arab State.
His Majesty's Government are charged as the Mandatory authority "to secure the development of self governing institutions" in Palestine. Apart from this specific obligation, they would regard it as contrary to the whole spirit of the Mandate system that the population of Palestine should remain forever under Mandatory tutelage. It is proper that the people of the country should as early as possible enjoy the rights of self-government which are exercised by the people of neighbouring countries. His Majesty's Government are unable at present to foresee the exact constitutional forms which government in Palestine will eventually take, but their objective is self government, and they desire to see established ultimately an independent Palestine State. It should be a State in which the two peoples in Palestine, Arabs and Jews, share authority in government in such a way that the essential interests of each are shared.
The establishment of an independent State and the complete relinquishmnet of Mandatory control in Palestine would require such relations between the Arabs and the Jews as would make good government possible. Moreover, the growth of self governing institutions in Palestine, as in other countries, must be an evolutionary process. A transitional period will be required before independence is achieved, throughout which ultimate responsibility for the Government of the country will be retained by His Majesty's Government as the Mandatory authority, while the people of the country are taking an increasing share in the Government, and understanding and cooperation amongst them are growing. It will be the constant endeavour of His Majesty's Government to promote good relations between the Arabs and the Jews.
In the light of these considerations His Majesty's Government make the following declaration of their intentions regarding the future government of Palestine:
The objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. The proposal for the establishment of the independent State would involve consultation with the Council of the League of Nations with a view to the termination of the Mandate.
The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded.
The establishment of the independent State will be preceded by a transitional period throughout which His Majesty's Government will retain responsibility for the country. During the transitional period the people of Palestine will be given an increasing part in the government of their country. Both sections of the population will have an opportunity to participate in the machinery of government, and the process will be carried on whether or not they both avail themselves of it.
As soon as peace and order have been sufficiently restored in Palestine steps will be taken to carry out this policy of giving the people of Palestine an increasing part in the government of their country, the objective being to place Palestinians in charge of all the Departments of Government, with the assistance of British advisers and subject to the control of the High Commissioner. Arab and Jewish representatives will be invited to serve as heads of Departments approximately in proportion to their respective populations. The number of Palestinians in charge of Departments will be increased as circumstances permit until all heads of Departments are Palestinians, exercising the administrative and advisory functions which are presently performed by British officials. When that stage is reached consideration will be given to the question of converting the Executive Council into a Council of Ministers with a consequential change in the status and functions of the Palestinian heads of Departments.
His Majesty's Government make no proposals at this stage regarding the establishment of an elective legislature. Nevertheless they would regard this as an appropriate constitutional development, and, should public opinion in Palestine hereafter show itself in favour of such a development, they will be prepared, provided that local conditions permit, to establish the necessary machinery.
At the end of five years from the restoration of peace and order, an appropriate body representative of the people of Palestine and of His Majesty's Government will be set up to review the working of the constitutional arrangements during the transitional period and to consider and make recommendations regarding the constitution of the independent Palestine State.
His Majesty's Government will require to be satisfied that in the treaty contemplated by sub-paragraph (6) adequate provision has been made for:
the security of, and freedom of access to the Holy Places, and protection of the interests and property of the various religious bodies.
the protection of the different communities in Palestine in accordance with the obligations of His Majesty's Government to both Arabs and Jews and for the special position in Palestine of the Jewish NationalHome.
such requirements to meet the strategic situation as may be regarded as necessary by His Majesty's Government in the light of the circumstances then existing. His Majesty's Government will also require to be satisfied that the interests of certain foreign countries in Palestine, for the preservation of which they are at present responsible, are adequately safeguarded.
His Majesty's Government will do everything in their power to create conditions which will enable the independent Palestine State to come into being within 10 years. If, at the end of 10 years, it appears to His Majesty's Government that, contrary to their hope, circumstances require the postponement of the establishment of the independent State, they will consult with representatives of the people of Palestine, the Council of the League of Nations and the neighbouring Arab States before deciding on such a postponement. If His Majesty's Government come to the conclusion that postponement is unavoidable, they will invite the co-operation of these parties in framing plans for the future with a view to achieving the desired objective at the earliest possible date.
During the transitional period steps will be taken to increase the powers and responsibilities of municipal corporations and local councils.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1939.asp
Section I. "The Constitution"
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. That Palestine was not to be converted into a Jewish State might be held to be implied in the passage from the Command Paper of 1922 which reads as follows
"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 .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. 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 nature of the Jewish National Home in Palestine was further described in the Command Paper of 1922 as follows
"During the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community now numbering 80,000, of whom about one fourth are farmers or workers upon the land. This community has its own political organs; an elected assembly for the direction of its domestic concerns; elected councils in the towns; and an organisation for the control of its schools. It has its elected Chief Rabbinate and Rabbinical Council for the direction of its religious affairs. Its business is conducted in Hebrew as a vernacular language, and a Hebrew press serves its needs. It has its distinctive intellectual life and displays considerable economic activity. This community, then, with its town and country population, its political, religious and social organisations, its own language, its own customs, its own life, has in fact `national' characteristics. 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 as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and pride. But in order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognised to rest upon ancient historic connection."
His Majesty's Government adhere to this intepretation of the (Balfour) Declaration of 1917 and regard it as an authoritative and comprehensive description of the character of the Jewish National Home in Palestine. It envisaged the further development of the existing Jewish community with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world. Evidence that His Majesty's Government have been carrying out their obligation in this respect is to be found in the facts that, since the statement of 1922 was published, more than 300,000 Jews have immigrated to Palestine, and that the population of the National Home has risen to some 450,000, or approaching a third of the entire population of the country. Nor has the Jewish community failed to take full advantage of the opportunities given to it. The growth of the Jewish National Home and its acheivements in many fields are a remarkable constructive effort which must command the admiration of the world and must be, in particular, a source of pride to the Jewish people.
In the recent discussions the Arab delegations have repeated the contention that Palestine was included within the area in which Sir Henry McMahon, on behalf of the British Government, in October, 1915, undertook to recognise and support Arab independence. The validity of this claim, based on the terms of the correspondence which passed between Sir Henry McMahon and the Sharif of Mecca, was thoroughly and carefully investigated by the British and Arab representatives during the recent conferences in London. Their report, which has been published, states that both the Arab and the British representatives endeavoured to understand the point of view of the other party but that they were unable to reach agreement upon an interpretation of the correspondence. There is no need to summarize here the arguments presented by each side. His Majesty's Government regret the misunderstandings which have arisen as regards some of the phrases used. For their part they can only adhere, for the reasons given by their representatives in the Report, to the view that the whole of Palestine west of Jordan was excluded from Sir Henry McMahon's pledge, and they therefore cannot agree that the McMahon correspondence forms a just basis for the claim that Palestine should be converted into an Arab State.
His Majesty's Government are charged as the Mandatory authority "to secure the development of self governing institutions" in Palestine. Apart from this specific obligation, they would regard it as contrary to the whole spirit of the Mandate system that the population of Palestine should remain forever under Mandatory tutelage. It is proper that the people of the country should as early as possible enjoy the rights of self-government which are exercised by the people of neighbouring countries. His Majesty's Government are unable at present to foresee the exact constitutional forms which government in Palestine will eventually take, but their objective is self government, and they desire to see established ultimately an independent Palestine State. It should be a State in which the two peoples in Palestine, Arabs and Jews, share authority in government in such a way that the essential interests of each are shared.
The establishment of an independent State and the complete relinquishmnet of Mandatory control in Palestine would require such relations between the Arabs and the Jews as would make good government possible. Moreover, the growth of self governing institutions in Palestine, as in other countries, must be an evolutionary process. A transitional period will be required before independence is achieved, throughout which ultimate responsibility for the Government of the country will be retained by His Majesty's Government as the Mandatory authority, while the people of the country are taking an increasing share in the Government, and understanding and cooperation amongst them are growing. It will be the constant endeavour of His Majesty's Government to promote good relations between the Arabs and the Jews.
In the light of these considerations His Majesty's Government make the following declaration of their intentions regarding the future government of Palestine:
The objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. The proposal for the establishment of the independent State would involve consultation with the Council of the League of Nations with a view to the termination of the Mandate.
The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded.
The establishment of the independent State will be preceded by a transitional period throughout which His Majesty's Government will retain responsibility for the country. During the transitional period the people of Palestine will be given an increasing part in the government of their country. Both sections of the population will have an opportunity to participate in the machinery of government, and the process will be carried on whether or not they both avail themselves of it.
As soon as peace and order have been sufficiently restored in Palestine steps will be taken to carry out this policy of giving the people of Palestine an increasing part in the government of their country, the objective being to place Palestinians in charge of all the Departments of Government, with the assistance of British advisers and subject to the control of the High Commissioner. Arab and Jewish representatives will be invited to serve as heads of Departments approximately in proportion to their respective populations. The number of Palestinians in charge of Departments will be increased as circumstances permit until all heads of Departments are Palestinians, exercising the administrative and advisory functions which are presently performed by British officials. When that stage is reached consideration will be given to the question of converting the Executive Council into a Council of Ministers with a consequential change in the status and functions of the Palestinian heads of Departments.
His Majesty's Government make no proposals at this stage regarding the establishment of an elective legislature. Nevertheless they would regard this as an appropriate constitutional development, and, should public opinion in Palestine hereafter show itself in favour of such a development, they will be prepared, provided that local conditions permit, to establish the necessary machinery.
At the end of five years from the restoration of peace and order, an appropriate body representative of the people of Palestine and of His Majesty's Government will be set up to review the working of the constitutional arrangements during the transitional period and to consider and make recommendations regarding the constitution of the independent Palestine State.
His Majesty's Government will require to be satisfied that in the treaty contemplated by sub-paragraph (6) adequate provision has been made for:
the security of, and freedom of access to the Holy Places, and protection of the interests and property of the various religious bodies.
the protection of the different communities in Palestine in accordance with the obligations of His Majesty's Government to both Arabs and Jews and for the special position in Palestine of the Jewish NationalHome.
such requirements to meet the strategic situation as may be regarded as necessary by His Majesty's Government in the light of the circumstances then existing. His Majesty's Government will also require to be satisfied that the interests of certain foreign countries in Palestine, for the preservation of which they are at present responsible, are adequately safeguarded.
His Majesty's Government will do everything in their power to create conditions which will enable the independent Palestine State to come into being within 10 years. If, at the end of 10 years, it appears to His Majesty's Government that, contrary to their hope, circumstances require the postponement of the establishment of the independent State, they will consult with representatives of the people of Palestine, the Council of the League of Nations and the neighbouring Arab States before deciding on such a postponement. If His Majesty's Government come to the conclusion that postponement is unavoidable, they will invite the co-operation of these parties in framing plans for the future with a view to achieving the desired objective at the earliest possible date.
During the transitional period steps will be taken to increase the powers and responsibilities of municipal corporations and local councils.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1939.asp
Guest- Guest
Re: 1939 Palestinian Flag. What does it look like? Surprised?
by Guest Mon Nov 09, 2015 2:22 pm
What about the British white paper?
Again never seen so many poor deflections from the poster who cannot argue or counter for herself
Try again
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp
Again never seen so many poor deflections from the poster who cannot argue or counter for herself
Try again
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp
Guest- Guest
Guest- Guest
Re: 1939 Palestinian Flag. What does it look like? Surprised?
by Guest Mon Nov 09, 2015 2:25 pm
however it does closely resemble some of the flags which were used on Jewish shipping vessels at the time
ie, ships of a company owned by Jews. THAT MEANS SHIPS OWNED BY JEWISH COMPANIES IN MANY PARTS OF THE WORLD IE NOT SPECIFIC TO PALESTINE.
ie, ships of a company owned by Jews. THAT MEANS SHIPS OWNED BY JEWISH COMPANIES IN MANY PARTS OF THE WORLD IE NOT SPECIFIC TO PALESTINE.
Guest- Guest
Re: 1939 Palestinian Flag. What does it look like? Surprised?
by Guest Mon Nov 09, 2015 2:25 pm
So I post something from the league of nations and Sassy posts something from the British
One moment
One moment
Guest- Guest
Re: 1939 Palestinian Flag. What does it look like? Surprised?
by Guest Mon Nov 09, 2015 2:27 pm
That just make you look so silly Didge, and even sillier because you don't get why it made you look silly. I'll leave you to keep on, absolutely owned 
Guest- Guest
Re: 1939 Palestinian Flag. What does it look like? Surprised?
by Guest Mon Nov 09, 2015 2:28 pm
Hilarious and PMSL that Sassy places the league of nations below the British.
You cannot make it up how stupid that is ha ha ha
You cannot make it up how stupid that is ha ha ha
Guest- Guest
Re: 1939 Palestinian Flag. What does it look like? Surprised?
by Guest Mon Nov 09, 2015 3:29 pm
Seriously makes me laugh these clowns who invent things not said.
If you have nothing to debate which is evident, do not waste my time with your ignorance.
Also typical emotive deflection.
If you have nothing to debate which is evident, do not waste my time with your ignorance.
Also typical emotive deflection.
Guest- Guest
Re: 1939 Palestinian Flag. What does it look like? Surprised?
by Guest Mon Nov 09, 2015 4:32 pm
Poor deflection with no relevance to the debate, attempting to derail the threadFuzzy Zack wrote:Didge wrote:Seriously makes me laugh these clowns who invent things not said.
If you have nothing to debate which is evident, do not waste my time with your ignorance.
Also typical emotive deflection.
Didge, we know this is the reason why you delete and create a new profile.
Poor deflection with no relevance to the debate, attempting to derail the thread
You've now done it about 4 times on newsfix alone.
Poor deflection with no relevance to the debate, attempting to derail the thread
I know exactly what you said as your previous username and I'm now enjoying seeing you backtrack.
So amusing
Guest- Guest
Re: 1939 Palestinian Flag. What does it look like? Surprised?
by Guest Mon Nov 09, 2015 4:37 pm
I think poor zack has gotten confused over me stating a flag being recognised
Ha Ha Ha Ha
Oh dear talk about school boy error
You need to follow the context of what has been said, now I understand your hysterics
There has never been a Palestinian state until Israel made for the creation of one to be a reality, as it could have been the case also in 1948, but they were occupied by Jordan and Eygot of which I might ad, they never laid claim to these lands then being occupied. This is backed up by the 1964 PLO charter..Though one could have been formed 3 times, but the Palestinian authorities have refused to do so because they do not recognise Israel to exist.
Ha Ha Ha Ha
Oh dear talk about school boy error
You need to follow the context of what has been said, now I understand your hysterics
There has never been a Palestinian state until Israel made for the creation of one to be a reality, as it could have been the case also in 1948, but they were occupied by Jordan and Eygot of which I might ad, they never laid claim to these lands then being occupied. This is backed up by the 1964 PLO charter..Though one could have been formed 3 times, but the Palestinian authorities have refused to do so because they do not recognise Israel to exist.
Guest- Guest
Re: 1939 Palestinian Flag. What does it look like? Surprised?
by Guest Mon Nov 09, 2015 4:50 pm
Yes didge, it was recognised - IT WAS RECOGNISED AS A SHIP'S FLAG OF SHIP OWNED BY JEWISH COMPANIES, NO MATTER WHERE THEY WERE BASED IN THE WORLD - IT WAS NOT REGONISED AS A FLAG OF PALESTING.
Said very, very slowly so that it might sink in. Good grief!
Said very, very slowly so that it might sink in. Good grief!
Guest- Guest
Re: 1939 Palestinian Flag. What does it look like? Surprised?
by Guest Mon Nov 09, 2015 4:55 pm
Ah tthe other clown is back that thinks a British paper answered the league of nations./
That was priceless.
It shows Sassy never reads anything properly
Anyway its evident that its always been the Palestinians as the aggressors and they are far from victims. Israel has every valid argument in its defence. I mean the way people defend the palestinians, neglecting their aggression, is like claiming the Nazi's were victims for invading Poland.
That is how absurd some of the left and some Muslims are.
Though I am for a two state solution, even if the Arabs were the aggressors and lost multiple times
I shall leave the two extremists supporters to sulk.
lol
Laters
That was priceless.
It shows Sassy never reads anything properly
Anyway its evident that its always been the Palestinians as the aggressors and they are far from victims. Israel has every valid argument in its defence. I mean the way people defend the palestinians, neglecting their aggression, is like claiming the Nazi's were victims for invading Poland.
That is how absurd some of the left and some Muslims are.
Though I am for a two state solution, even if the Arabs were the aggressors and lost multiple times
I shall leave the two extremists supporters to sulk.
lol
Laters
Guest- Guest
Re: 1939 Palestinian Flag. What does it look like? Surprised?
by Irn Bru Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:50 am
The Balfour declaration and the British Mandate were never intended to create a Jewish state to the detriment of the Arab population and that is well understood. It was for self-automous community regulation withi Palestine and the San Remo conference was clear on that with Article 22 of the Covenant. These provisions were put in place before the League of Nations signed off the Mandate and the British government were right to clarify what was meant all along.
Irn Bru- The Tartan terror. Keeper of the royal sporran. Chief Haggis Hunter
- Posts : 7719
Join date : 2013-12-11
Location : Edinburgh
Re: 1939 Palestinian Flag. What does it look like? Surprised?
by Guest Tue Nov 10, 2015 1:33 am
Funnily enough, I just found this SHAKESPEARE quote (1564 - 1616)
Othello Act 4 Scene 3
Othello Act 4 Scene 3
Guest- Guest
Re: 1939 Palestinian Flag. What does it look like? Surprised?
by Guest Tue Nov 10, 2015 5:54 am
I see Irn makes the same mistake as Sassy.
The League of nations was the forerunner to the United Nations.
So saying that the British declaration superscedes the League of Nations and also the United Nations is blatantly absurd.It does not matter what the British declaration was in the Balfour agreement, as it was the League of Nations that authorised British control of the British Mandate in Palestine in 1923. That means on British control being formalised there was conditions, see below. This is what the extreme lefties cannot seem to comprehend. The British are the most to blame for this as they did make promises to both sides. At the end of the day the League of nations and later the UN made proposals for a the division of the area for the creation of two states. On 29 November 1947, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan as Resolution 181(II). So maybe sassy and Irn can explain why they think one nation holds more sway and power than a collective body in the League of Nations and United Nations, the former that consented to British control of the area in the first place? Talk about the pair of them backing British Imperialsim and Colonialism.
What is even worse is they are both proving beyond doubt of their denial for the creation and existance of a Jewish state. It does not take much to unveil the true nature and hatred some have of the Jews, that they seek to look to British Imperialism as their defence and even worse defending against the very existance of a Jewish state. Antisemitism much?
The Council of the League of Nations:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and
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; and
Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph
, it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;
confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:
The League of nations was the forerunner to the United Nations.
So saying that the British declaration superscedes the League of Nations and also the United Nations is blatantly absurd.It does not matter what the British declaration was in the Balfour agreement, as it was the League of Nations that authorised British control of the British Mandate in Palestine in 1923. That means on British control being formalised there was conditions, see below. This is what the extreme lefties cannot seem to comprehend. The British are the most to blame for this as they did make promises to both sides. At the end of the day the League of nations and later the UN made proposals for a the division of the area for the creation of two states. On 29 November 1947, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan as Resolution 181(II). So maybe sassy and Irn can explain why they think one nation holds more sway and power than a collective body in the League of Nations and United Nations, the former that consented to British control of the area in the first place? Talk about the pair of them backing British Imperialsim and Colonialism.
What is even worse is they are both proving beyond doubt of their denial for the creation and existance of a Jewish state. It does not take much to unveil the true nature and hatred some have of the Jews, that they seek to look to British Imperialism as their defence and even worse defending against the very existance of a Jewish state. Antisemitism much?
The Council of the League of Nations:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and
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; and
Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph
, it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:
Guest- Guest
Re: 1939 Palestinian Flag. What does it look like? Surprised?
by Irn Bru Wed Nov 11, 2015 12:54 am
Didge wrote:I see Irn makes the same mistake as Sassy.
The League of nations was the forerunner to the United Nations.
So saying that the British declaration superscedes the League of Nations and also the United Nations is blatantly absurd.It does not matter what the British declaration was in the Balfour agreement, as it was the League of Nations that authorised British control of the British Mandate in Palestine in 1923. That means on British control being formalised there was conditions, see below. This is what the extreme lefties cannot seem to comprehend. The British are the most to blame for this as they did make promises to both sides. At the end of the day the League of nations and later the UN made proposals for a the division of the area for the creation of two states. On 29 November 1947, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan as Resolution 181(II). So maybe sassy and Irn can explain why they think one nation holds more sway and power than a collective body in the League of Nations and United Nations, the former that consented to British control of the area in the first place? Talk about the pair of them backing British Imperialsim and Colonialism.
What is even worse is they are both proving beyond doubt of their denial for the creation and existance of a Jewish state. It does not take much to unveil the true nature and hatred some have of the Jews, that they seek to look to British Imperialism as their defence and even worse defending against the very existance of a Jewish state. Antisemitism much?
The Council of the League of Nations:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and
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; and
Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph
confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:
Yes Didge, we all know the League of Nations was the forerunner to the United Nations and no Irn has not nade a mistake....you have.
I've already shown you where the Ango-American enquiry made quite clear that the Mandate never intended for Palestine to become a Jewish state and you woon't find anything in what you have posted that says that it did.
And the British declaration and the White paper did not supercede the League of Nations - go and check the chronolgy of the events. What it states is 'seperate social and political institutions or self-governing institutions - not a Jewish state.
People were running away with the impression that the Mandate was a mandate to create a Jewish state and the British government were correct in issuing the white paper pointing out that it was not. The British White paper which Sassy introduced to this thread was dated June 1922. This was presented to the League of Nations in Geneva who then formalised and commisioned Britain as the mandated power in July 1922 based on that so the clarifaication was in place BEFORE the League of Nations gave their final approval. The Mandate took effect in 1923.
The Balfour declaration was nothing more than a piece of war propaganda to enlist the favour of the Jewry thoroughout the world to back Britain as an occupying power when the was ended. They did the same with the Arabs but that's what governments do in a time of war and you have much to learn if you can't see that.
The British White paper was sponsorded by Winston Churchill who was in charge of the Colonial Office at the time. Go and check through the National Archives and educate yourself on the background to Balfour Declaration (a letter) it's all there.
Irn Bru- The Tartan terror. Keeper of the royal sporran. Chief Haggis Hunter
- Posts : 7719
Join date : 2013-12-11
Location : Edinburgh
Re: 1939 Palestinian Flag. What does it look like? Surprised?
by Guest Wed Nov 11, 2015 5:21 am
Irn Bru wrote:Didge wrote:I see Irn makes the same mistake as Sassy.
The League of nations was the forerunner to the United Nations.
So saying that the British declaration superscedes the League of Nations and also the United Nations is blatantly absurd.It does not matter what the British declaration was in the Balfour agreement, as it was the League of Nations that authorised British control of the British Mandate in Palestine in 1923. That means on British control being formalised there was conditions, see below. This is what the extreme lefties cannot seem to comprehend. The British are the most to blame for this as they did make promises to both sides. At the end of the day the League of nations and later the UN made proposals for a the division of the area for the creation of two states. On 29 November 1947, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan as Resolution 181(II). So maybe sassy and Irn can explain why they think one nation holds more sway and power than a collective body in the League of Nations and United Nations, the former that consented to British control of the area in the first place? Talk about the pair of them backing British Imperialsim and Colonialism.
What is even worse is they are both proving beyond doubt of their denial for the creation and existance of a Jewish state. It does not take much to unveil the true nature and hatred some have of the Jews, that they seek to look to British Imperialism as their defence and even worse defending against the very existance of a Jewish state. Antisemitism much?
The Council of the League of Nations:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and
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; and
Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph
confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:
Yes Didge, we all know the League of Nations was the forerunner to the United Nations and no Irn has not nade a mistake....you have.
Yes you have made a mistkae as you are missing out so much of history and I know for a fact you know this also. So again it is you that is in error and has been throughout when you again in error jumped in here showing why you are against the original creation of Israel and thus against self determination.
I've already shown you where the Ango-American enquiry made quite clear that the Mandate never intended for Palestine to become a Jewish state and you woon't find anything in what you have posted that says that it did.
So again you look to superscede the decisions of the League of Nations and then later the UN approval to devide the territories based off an angl aggrement. Sorry that does not cut it and actually further proves your belief that Israel should not have been created. No aggreemnt like that supperscedes either organistaion unless you think again Israel should not exist and ignores the other bodies of nations that did approve. You seem to forget that the British was an occupying force with no real merit to being there other than colonial gains.
And the British declaration and the White paper did not supercede the League of Nations - go and check the chronolgy of the events. What it states is 'seperate social and political institutions or self-governing institutions - not a Jewish state.People were running away with the impression that the Mandate was a mandate to create a Jewish state and the British government were correct in issuing the white paper pointing out that it was not. The British White paper which Sassy introduced to this thread was dated June 1922. This was presented to the League of Nations in Geneva who then formalised and commisioned Britain as the mandated power in July 1922 based on that so the clarifaication was in place BEFORE the League of Nations gave their final approval. The Mandate took effect in 1923.
Does not matter when it was dated, as again you are going off British Imperialism, which again only British control was based off conditions which again clearly state to look for the creation of a Jewish state which all can read in black and white. I set up this test for you to easily fail as I knew you would, for people to see your true intentions. I already stated when the Mandate took effect, so you seem to be trying your best to get out of the facts. I mean if you want to go off timelines Irn we can go on about the San Remo conference in 1920 for example.
The Conference was also attended by Chaim Weizmann, Nahum Sokolow, and Herbert Samuel, who presented a memorandum to the British delegation on the final settlement in the Eastern Mediterranean region. The article concerning Palestine was debated on April 24 and the next day it was finally resolved to incorporate the Balfour Declaration in Britain's mandate in Palestine. Thus Britain was made responsible "for putting into effect the declaration made on the 8th [sic.] November 1917 by the British Government and adopted by the other Allied 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 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."
The resolution at San Remo was celebrated by mass rallies throughout the Jewish world.
You can of course educate yourself further on this
:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Remo_conference
The Balfour declaration was nothing more than a piece of war propaganda to enlist the favour of the Jewry thoroughout the world to back Britain as an occupying power when the was ended. They did the same with the Arabs but that's what governments do in a time of war and you have much to learn if you can't see that.
Yes we know that the British made poor promises to both sides, but you ignore the fact the League of Nations and later the UN look for the view to have two seperate states, which at every turn you are denying, and it was Sassy that brought up the Balfour aggreemnet to try and think this superscede the League of nations, which it does not
The British White paper was sponsorded by Winston Churchill who was in charge of the Colonial Office at the time. Go and check through the National Archives and educate yourself on the background to Balfour Declaration (a letter) it's all there.
I have no need to check anything and at no point have you addressed a single point made. Again I am very happy with both your responses as it further proves how each of you have not only argued and used British Imperailism to deny the creation of Israel and you are still activelly arguing against the creation of one here. I mean even when you look back you can find it has always been Arab hate of the Jews. take for example the Shaw Commision, which found that violence had been formed from racial hatred and again broken promises by the British to both sides. The British then disgustingly backed the racist policy by stopping immigration at a time of further rising antisemitism within Europe. This led to the Hope-Simpson Report with was not only racist as sen but Pro-Arab. That would be like Europe today stopping Refugees from the Middle East based off the fears of far right groups, but lets ignore how your arguments constantly contradict.
Then you also ignore the Peel Commision of 1936-1939. This recommended to abolish the Madate and again recommended for the partition of the country between the two people. At the time the British Governemnt approved the recommendations although again when even more antisemitism was growing in Europe it called to stop racially Jews legally buying land. This was then endorsed by Parliment. The important part here is whilst there was disagreemnt between the Jews, it was mainly supported, but rejected out of hand by the Arabs. Even back then we can see that the Arabs had no intention of a two state solution or any intention of peace.
So lets actually see what was spoken about in the Anglo agreement, which you seem to have eluded to speak about.
It was only a recommendation again to the UN, where it called for the Mandate to continue. As this was both rejected by both the Arabs and the Jews, the British refered the problem to the UN. It is then that the UN proposed the partition plan. In 1947 the UN adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan as Resolution 181(II).
So on every count you have been wronga nd tried to skew the facts and badly so, more so provong you are against the self determination of the Jews. Its ironic as the Arabs tried to deny self determination by arguing self determination themselves. Anyone against Israels creation would have to then be against the formation of many nations that have been minorities within what was once a larger nation. This would include, Poland, Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia, Ukrane, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia etc, etc. There was the Ottoman Empire which had many different ethnic groups, then the area was oocupied by the British. It shows that it has always been the Arabs that have never excepted self determination and when the resolution was adopted they choose war.
Thanks it does not take much to reel in an extremist those who have hatred for the jews, have openly admitted support for Hamas whos policies goes against the well being and equality of people.
Guest- Guest
Re: 1939 Palestinian Flag. What does it look like? Surprised?
by Irn Bru Thu Nov 12, 2015 1:06 am
That reply is just a catalogue of defections, fiction and total fantasy that you have come up with to try and dig yourself out of a hole that you have managed to dig for yourself and you have even manage to state that the dates are irelevant when you previously claimed that the White paper superceded the League of Nations. That is a classic even for you Didge,
You were proved wrong by the British White paper that clarified that the Mandate was not the creation of a state for Israel.
You were proved wrong by the fact that it clearly says Self-governing instistutions
You were proved wrong by the statements that came from the Ango/American enquiry.
Yoy were proved wrong by the chronolgy of events that showed that the Mandate was confered on Britain AFTER the the white paper was presented to the League of Nations.
You have been proved wrong on every point and it's all backed up with hard evidence and facts and you know it.
Just keep waffing along Didge as you always do and feel free to have the last word that a narxcissist always has to have.
The dates are not importantAnd yes Didge, keep moving on from 1923 when the Mandate was enacted as that's just another deflection from the point of this particular issue. Case closed I'm afraid.
Irn Bru- The Tartan terror. Keeper of the royal sporran. Chief Haggis Hunter
- Posts : 7719
Join date : 2013-12-11
Location : Edinburgh
Re: 1939 Palestinian Flag. What does it look like? Surprised?
by Guest Thu Nov 12, 2015 1:50 am
So I see Irn is back to his usual immature self
Failed to refute anything I said, and being as it mainly claims I am wrong when in fact Irn fails to show any such thing I am very happy
So let me know when you want to address my points, because as seen, you really had a lesson in history from me
Try again
Does not matter when it was dated, as again you are going off British Imperialism, which again only British control was based off conditions which again clearly state to look for the creation of a Jewish state which all can read in black and white. I set up this test for you to easily fail as I knew you would, for people to see your true intentions. I already stated when the Mandate took effect, so you seem to be trying your best to get out of the facts. I mean if you want to go off timelines Irn we can go on about the San Remo conference in 1920 for example.
The Conference was also attended by Chaim Weizmann, Nahum Sokolow, and Herbert Samuel, who presented a memorandum to the British delegation on the final settlement in the Eastern Mediterranean region. The article concerning Palestine was debated on April 24 and the next day it was finally resolved to incorporate the Balfour Declaration in Britain's mandate in Palestine. Thus Britain was made responsible "for putting into effect the declaration made on the 8th [sic.] November 1917 by the British Government and adopted by the other Allied 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 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."
The resolution at San Remo was celebrated by mass rallies throughout the Jewish world.
You can of course educate yourself further on this
:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Remo_conference
Yes we know that the British made poor promises to both sides, but you ignore the fact the League of Nations and later the UN look for the view to have two seperate states, which at every turn you are denying, and it was Sassy that brought up the Balfour aggreemnet to try and think this superscede the League of nations, which it does not
.
I have no need to check anything and at no point have you addressed a single point made. Again I am very happy with both your responses as it further proves how each of you have not only argued and used British Imperailism to deny the creation of Israel and you are still activelly arguing against the creation of one here. I mean even when you look back you can find it has always been Arab hate of the Jews. take for example the Shaw Commision, which found that violence had been formed from racial hatred and again broken promises by the British to both sides. The British then disgustingly backed the racist policy by stopping immigration at a time of further rising antisemitism within Europe. This led to the Hope-Simpson Report with was not only racist as sen but Pro-Arab. That would be like Europe today stopping Refugees from the Middle East based off the fears of far right groups, but lets ignore how your arguments constantly contradict.
Then you also ignore the Peel Commision of 1936-1939. This recommended to abolish the Madate and again recommended for the partition of the country between the two people. At the time the British Governemnt approved the recommendations although again when even more antisemitism was growing in Europe it called to stop racially Jews legally buying land. This was then endorsed by Parliment. The important part here is whilst there was disagreemnt between the Jews, it was mainly supported, but rejected out of hand by the Arabs. Even back then we can see that the Arabs had no intention of a two state solution or any intention of peace.
So lets actually see what was spoken about in the Anglo agreement, which you seem to have eluded to speak about.
It was only a recommendation again to the UN, where it called for the Mandate to continue. As this was both rejected by both the Arabs and the Jews, the British refered the problem to the UN. It is then that the UN proposed the partition plan. In 1947 the UN adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan as Resolution 181(II).
So on every count you have been wronga nd tried to skew the facts and badly so, more so provong you are against the self determination of the Jews. Its ironic as the Arabs tried to deny self determination by arguing self determination themselves. Anyone against Israels creation would have to then be against the formation of many nations that have been minorities within what was once a larger nation. This would include, Poland, Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia, Ukrane, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia etc, etc. There was the Ottoman Empire which had many different ethnic groups, then the area was oocupied by the British. It shows that it has always been the Arabs that have never excepted self determination and when the resolution was adopted they choose war.
Thanks it does not take much to reel in an extremist those who have hatred for the jews, have openly admitted support for Hamas whos policies goes against the well being and equality of people.
Failed to refute anything I said, and being as it mainly claims I am wrong when in fact Irn fails to show any such thing I am very happy
So let me know when you want to address my points, because as seen, you really had a lesson in history from me
Try again
Does not matter when it was dated, as again you are going off British Imperialism, which again only British control was based off conditions which again clearly state to look for the creation of a Jewish state which all can read in black and white. I set up this test for you to easily fail as I knew you would, for people to see your true intentions. I already stated when the Mandate took effect, so you seem to be trying your best to get out of the facts. I mean if you want to go off timelines Irn we can go on about the San Remo conference in 1920 for example.
The Conference was also attended by Chaim Weizmann, Nahum Sokolow, and Herbert Samuel, who presented a memorandum to the British delegation on the final settlement in the Eastern Mediterranean region. The article concerning Palestine was debated on April 24 and the next day it was finally resolved to incorporate the Balfour Declaration in Britain's mandate in Palestine. Thus Britain was made responsible "for putting into effect the declaration made on the 8th [sic.] November 1917 by the British Government and adopted by the other Allied 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 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."
The resolution at San Remo was celebrated by mass rallies throughout the Jewish world.
You can of course educate yourself further on this
:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Remo_conference
Yes we know that the British made poor promises to both sides, but you ignore the fact the League of Nations and later the UN look for the view to have two seperate states, which at every turn you are denying, and it was Sassy that brought up the Balfour aggreemnet to try and think this superscede the League of nations, which it does not
.
I have no need to check anything and at no point have you addressed a single point made. Again I am very happy with both your responses as it further proves how each of you have not only argued and used British Imperailism to deny the creation of Israel and you are still activelly arguing against the creation of one here. I mean even when you look back you can find it has always been Arab hate of the Jews. take for example the Shaw Commision, which found that violence had been formed from racial hatred and again broken promises by the British to both sides. The British then disgustingly backed the racist policy by stopping immigration at a time of further rising antisemitism within Europe. This led to the Hope-Simpson Report with was not only racist as sen but Pro-Arab. That would be like Europe today stopping Refugees from the Middle East based off the fears of far right groups, but lets ignore how your arguments constantly contradict.
Then you also ignore the Peel Commision of 1936-1939. This recommended to abolish the Madate and again recommended for the partition of the country between the two people. At the time the British Governemnt approved the recommendations although again when even more antisemitism was growing in Europe it called to stop racially Jews legally buying land. This was then endorsed by Parliment. The important part here is whilst there was disagreemnt between the Jews, it was mainly supported, but rejected out of hand by the Arabs. Even back then we can see that the Arabs had no intention of a two state solution or any intention of peace.
So lets actually see what was spoken about in the Anglo agreement, which you seem to have eluded to speak about.
It was only a recommendation again to the UN, where it called for the Mandate to continue. As this was both rejected by both the Arabs and the Jews, the British refered the problem to the UN. It is then that the UN proposed the partition plan. In 1947 the UN adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan as Resolution 181(II).
So on every count you have been wronga nd tried to skew the facts and badly so, more so provong you are against the self determination of the Jews. Its ironic as the Arabs tried to deny self determination by arguing self determination themselves. Anyone against Israels creation would have to then be against the formation of many nations that have been minorities within what was once a larger nation. This would include, Poland, Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia, Ukrane, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia etc, etc. There was the Ottoman Empire which had many different ethnic groups, then the area was oocupied by the British. It shows that it has always been the Arabs that have never excepted self determination and when the resolution was adopted they choose war.
Thanks it does not take much to reel in an extremist those who have hatred for the jews, have openly admitted support for Hamas whos policies goes against the well being and equality of people.
Guest- Guest
Sponsored content
Similar topics» Palestinian Writer: Hamas Uses Hitler-Like Methods That Will Doom The Palestinian People
» walmart refuse confederate flag cake but will make an isis battle flag cake!!!
» Surprised?
» Donald Trump Vent Thread
» Palestinian demonstrators clash with police after Palestinian teenager found dead
» walmart refuse confederate flag cake but will make an isis battle flag cake!!!
» Surprised?
» Donald Trump Vent Thread
» Palestinian demonstrators clash with police after Palestinian teenager found dead
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
» TOTAL MADNESS Great British Railway Journeys among shows flagged by counter terror scheme ‘for encouraging far-right sympathies
» Interesting COVID figures
» HAPPY CHRISTMAS.
» The Fight Over Climate Change is Over (The Greenies Won!)
» Trump supporter murders wife, kills family dog, shoots daughter
» Quill
» Algerian Woman under investigation for torture and murder of French girl, 12, whose body was found in plastic case in Paris
» Wind turbines cool down the Earth (edited with better video link)
» Saying goodbye to our Queen.
» PHEW.
» And here's some more enrichment...
» John F Kennedy Assassination
» Where is everyone lately...?
» London violence over the weekend...
» Why should anyone believe anything that Mo Farah says...!?
» Liverpool Labour defends mayor role poll after turnout was only 3% and they say they will push ahead with the option that was least preferred!!!
» Labour leader Keir Stammer can't answer the simple question of whether a woman has a penis or not...
» More evidence of remoaners still trying to overturn Brexit... and this is a conservative MP who should be drummed out of the party and out of parliament!
» R Kelly 30 years, Ghislaine Maxwell 20 years... but here in UK...