On the occasion of the intervention of Arab States in Palestine to restore law and order and to prevent disturbances prevailing in Palestine from spreading into their territories and to check further bloodshed, I have the honour to request your Excellency to bring following statement before General Assembly and Security Council.
I’m going to do best with this thing. And right off the bat, anyone who looks at this and says that the writer has a valid point is missing the irony of the whole statement. For one, the arab armies that invaded the area were not trying to stop violence from spreading into other arab areas and stop bloodshed – they were invading to cause bloodshed and kill as many jews as they could in the hope of destroying the new Jewish state before it got itself of the ground.
Further, please note that immediately, right off the bar – from the get go – the writer seeks the authority of the General Assembly and Security Council. This is important. The definition of irony has never been so thick.
1. Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire subject to its rule of law and enjoying full representation in its parliament, the great majority of its population was composed of Arabs with a small minority of Jews enjoying all rights alike with all the remaining citizens and liable only to such charges as all others were. Never were they as minority the subject of any discrimination on account of their creed. Holy Places were protected and accessible to all without distinction.
The region of Palestine was, indeed, a subject to the Ottoman Empire. After that, it was subject to British control. Before the Ottoman Empire the land was controlled, owed, run, by various other peoples and empires dating all the way back to roughly 1000 A.D. In 1000 A.D. followers of Mohammed and likely the forefathers to many of the people of Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and the rest of the region were the rulers of the land. They ruled the land after they took it in war. The give and take of the land in war dates all the way back to the biblical times of ancient Israel. In fact, the land that is the topic of this conversation is probably the most hotly contested land in the history of land in the world. It has been ruled by roughly 10 different full blown empires in the previous 2006 years, and controlled by many a roaming band of militants and black market traders. Each successive people who controlled the land did so after taking the land by force – either by killing every person there previously and moving in, or by simple empire conquest, or by diplomatically taking control during or after a war. No matter how you want to define it, every people that lived on the land, whether Jewish, Arab, Persian, Christian, were the people and followers of an empire that at one point took the land in war and lost the land in war.
The very history of the land in question is one of war, conquest, immigration both due to war and peace and due to simple human movement, and conflict. For anyone to argue otherwise is absurd. The writer who wishes to discuss this topic with any intelligence must recognize that this isn’t land akin to the Island of England – something controlled by the same people and royal families for a millennia. This is a land who “rightful” owner is, to put it simply, whoever had the most spears, catapults, canons, rifles, air power, guns, and bombs at the moment.
But what we can be clear on is this: At the time of the formation of Israel there was no legally recognized arab country on the land where Israel now is. This was not the equivalent of carving West Virginia out of Virginia. The powers that be, the English empire and the international community as recognized by the United Nations, allowed for and assisted in the creation of a Jewish state on what is now Israel. It was done for numerous reasons, and yes the holocaust and the guilt of the western world was part of it. But let us not also forget there were thousands of arabs who actually had legal title to land in the region who willfully sold the land to jews because the land was relatively awful and useless and they figured they would sell and leave. There were also numerous arabs that moved into the region for the specific purpose of working for and with the jews who were creating wealth in the area and jobs in the area.
2. The Arabs have constantly been seeking their freedom and independence; when the Second World War broke out and the Allies declared that they were fighting to restore freedom to the nations the Arabs sided with the Allies and placed all their means at their disposal and in fact fought with them for the realization of their national aspirations and their independence. Great Britain took upon herself the recognition of the independence of the Arab countries in Asia including Palestine. The Arabs' effort was felt and duly appreciated in winning victory.
The arabs fought with the allies in order to seek their own ends. They figured that if they supported the allies, they would be able to get what they want. Like many a people in the region over the past 2006 years, they gambled on the outcome of a war benefiting them. They were willing to let the war decide the outcome of their land. Whether the writer realizes this or not, this is a tacit acknowledgment that the people he claims own the land or had a rightful claims to the land, didn’t in fact have that right or claim. They were hoping that their side would win and they would get the spoils of that win. Sound familiar?
Further, the writer once again demands recognition that the British Empire promised the arab people the land there. Duly noted. The writer wants us to accept that the British Empire dictated something that must be followed. Cool with me.
3. Great Britain issued a declaration in 1917 in which expression was made of its sympathy with the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine. When this was brought to the knowledge of the Arabs they did not fail to express their resentment and opposition to such expression of policy and when they protested formally to Great Britain the latter made the necessary reassurances with a confirmation of the view that such a declaration did not affect in any degree their rights nor their freedom and independence, and that the said declaration did not prejudice the political position of the Arabs of Palestine notwithstanding the illegality of the said declaration. The British Government's interpretation of it was that it meant no more than the establishment of a spiritual abode for the Jews in Palestine without there being any ulterior political motives such as the creation of a Jewish State, that being further the expressed views of the Jewish leaders at the time.
First off, this entire paragraph is bull#### and devoid of an overriding understanding of something just as big as the conflicts of the middle east – the conflicts of the British Empire and the French. I really don’t think I need to go into that whole history, but if start in roughly 1066 and go to roughly 1945, the French and British Empires have been at war with each other – either hot or cold war – for roughly 50% of that time. When they worked in concert, it was in the hopes of one losing some world standing to the other in the long run. The interplay and geopolitical games between these two empires throughout time is an important part of the middle east “problem.”
And basically in a nutshell the Balfour Declaration was the culmination of years of British policy that supported the creation of a Jewish state, and the military and diplomatic desire of Britian to denounce certain promises made to the French, and as a result the arabs in the area that were the 3rd party beneficiaries of those promises. The British wanted to make France look bad, and they did so by killing roughly 4 birds with one stone. Many want to claim that the Balfour Declaration was handed down because of Jewish hands in the money of the British and allies war effort, but that doesn’t show an understanding of the totality of the history between the allies, nor an understanding the military realities of WWII. Winston Churchill believed right until the victory in France that the allies should focus all of their military power against Italy and Germany in that part of the world, and not in Western Europe. He was willing to allow the continued occupation of France until the British, with the help of America finally, took total and absolute military control of Northern Africa, the Meditteranean, and that entire region. He wasn’t about to allow Hitler to control that part of the world, and with it basically half the globe. And he wasn’t going to allow the arabs to openly oppose the British Empire and create havoc in the region and give him one more headache. So he did the politically safe thing during a war. Promise whatever you have to during the battle and hope you can deliver the promise if you win.
The actual issuance of the Declaration was in support of years of British policy that started when Napoleon actually promised to take control of an area in the region and give it to the Jews for a permanent homeland. Napoleon was eventually defeated and his idea didn’t get very far, except that the leading scholars of England at the time took the idea and allowed it to grow in British policy. As early as 1840 the British Empire was circulating diplomatic papers and newspaper editorials, which called for the creation of a Jewish state in the region. At THAT time the idea was to create the land, under the control of a regional Turkish government, but overseen by the British, French, Russia, and Austrian empires.
So, the British government was willing to promise anything to the people of the region to maintain control, assuage the leaders of the area that were getting louder and louder at a time when the last thing the British needed was another enemy in a massive World War, play their usual game with the French, and maintain their 100 year old policy of trying to create a Jewish state in the region if they could pull it off. The writer is willing to concede British authority when it suits him, but not when the British go a different way. Such is the history of much of the conflict from 1948 on.
And here is something else the writer didn’t mention. There were many arabs and arab leaders that in fact did support the Axis powers thinking that if the Germans won they would continue to “relocate” the jews and therefore give the lands to the arabs by default. In fact – again, something else no arab seems to want to acknowledge – there were arab leaders that called for open jihad, as late as 1941, against the ALLIES in WWII. Read up on the Grand Mufiti of Jerusalem and on Haj Amin Al Hussein. You’d be surprised I think.
4. When the war ended Great Britain did not fulfil its pledges. Instead Palestine was placed under a Mandate entrusted to Great Britain. The terms of the Mandate provided for the safeguarding of the interests of the inhabitants of Palestine and their preparation for eventual independence to which they were entitled by virtue of the Covenant of the League of Nations which admitted that the inhabitants of Palestine were fit for it.
The writer again allows for acknowledgement of another foreign power to control the land – the League of Nations. The LoN mandated the control of roughly 10 territories throughout the world that were previously ruled through colonial power of the axis power defeated in WWI. The Turkish areas of Palestine were, like all the other mandates, controlled by the allies through various treaties signed at the end of WWI. This is all true. And if the writer wants to accept this as true, then he accepts without revocation the power of the allies to control the land as required by the LoN and later the UN which took over all previous mandates of the LoN. The treaties that allowed the allies to take over control did not create any new governments – they were actually pretty awful treaties. They simply demanded that the Ottoman Empire and German Empire denounce all ownership and control over the lands required. They did that by executing the treaties, and total governmental control of those mandated lands was handed over to the victorious allies through the auspices of the LoN. Again, the balance of power in the region in question was basically handed to the French and British empires to work out.
The mandate for the middle east was an upper class mandate that recognized that while the people of the region were colonials for various empires throughout their history as recorded as far back as the LoN was willing to look, they were a people that was able to control itself through self rule. The areas of what is now Iraq was given to Britian in a separate and special mandate calling for specific things to happen before Iraq was allowed total control without British involvement. Iraq obtained its independence as a nation recognized by the world in 1932. The British screwed that up royally, but that’s a different story.
The mandate for the land that became Syria and Lebanon was given to the French. They attained their “independence” in 1943 and 1944 respectively, but France maintained provisional control and access on those countries. In order to ensure itself that France would not take over the control of the region through its mandates for Syria and Lebanon, the British took control of the mandates for “Palestine” and “Transjordan” which was the same land but treated as two distinct parts due to the natural divide of the land. Transjordan was treated differently then Palestine and vice versa. Neither was a country under any definition, but a mandate of the allies of WWI to end the colonization of a people and allow for the rule of the people, not a foreign empire. They were ideas, not nations.
Transjordan, due to several factors, was allowed to become the Kingdom of Jordan shortly after the end of WWII and Palestine was to be broken into a Jewish state and an arab state called Palestine as the British had been wanting to do for about a century. The reason they waited so long to do it was to make sure they (1) won the war, (2) got France as far out of the picture as they could before leaving themselves, and (3) to make sure that the region didn’t erupt in turmoil before their plans could be set in stone. It was brilliant diplomatic strategy.
The writer wants to complaint that the British promised that entire mandate to the arabs and specifically promised that no Jewish state would be formed. This right here is the very genesis of the current struggle. And in the final analysis, the catalyst for the problems are this: the British were never going to keep their promise and were very very likely always going to create a Jewish state in the region. In order to make it as peaceful as possible, they made the country as small as possible, and on some of the worst land in the area. They used every diplomatic tool to accomplish their goal. The Jews agreed to it in the end. The arabs balked.
But again, the arabs (I’m using the term as a typing expediency) demand that we adhere to the “promise” of the British Empire of 1917, but not the “promise” of the British empire of 1948. It’s an absurd position. As a people, they banked on the fact that if they supported the winner of the global war, they would get to dictate terms. They tried to do it when the winner actually won, and the winner dictated it’s own terms - which in the history of the region were infinitely better then anything they would have gotten had the British and French not taken the region.
5. Great Britain however placed Palestine in such a position as made it possible for the Jews to flood the country with waves of immigrants and factually helped their establishment on the soil despite the saturation of the land with its population which did exceed the absorptive capacity of the country economically and otherwise, thereby neglecting the provided for interests and the rights of its lawful inhabitants. The Arabs used all means at all times to express their deep concern and anxiety at such a policy which they felt was undermining their future and their very existence. But at all such times they were met with utter disregard and harsh treatment such as jail, exile, etc.
In 1922 the LoN formally dictated that Britian use the mandate of Palestine to form a Jewish homeland. It pretty much copied, word for word, the Balfour Declaration. It was the diplomatic equivalent of the allies telling the arabs that they were not going to get 100% of what they were promised. Like all of the former colonies of WWI that were eventually given independence, they were going to be given roughly 90% of what they were promised, and they were going to be happy with it.
From 1936-1939 the immigration question was a problem for everyone, not the least of which the British who without question screwed up the whole thing. As an aside, seriously, British colonial rule was awful. Just awful. I digress. There was immigration by the Jews that grew and grew. It grew because of the British mandate to create a state, the mandate of the LoN that called for the same state, and the because many of the arabs on the land didn’t want the land anymore because it didn’t produce anything. Like any conflict there were mistakes and problems in communication. The feudal laws of the arabs and the European laws of the jews conflicted a lot in the early years leading to a lot of struggles. Those struggles led the English to institute their controls on immigration. They were the equivalent of price controls in the American economy and the results were just as disasterous. Both sides, arab and jew, saw the controls as an attack on their ability to live and grow as a people and both – BOTH – objected to them.
But again, the arabs were going to be fine with all this as long as, in the end, the victory in WWII allowed the British to pass total control to them. It didn’t happen, and they have demanded retribution ever since. But they were fine with the Jews that were there and contnunally coming – for the most part – and with the British control and dictates in the area – as long as they got what they wanted in the end.
In fact, the struggles of the arabs in the area since 1939 are roughly similar to the struggles of the confederacy in this country from 1861-1865. It was not the legal equivalent of civil war, because there was no country with open rebellion. But the premises is the same. The south got pissed because they didn’t get what they wanted, but were willing to work with the system as long as they did. Similarly, the arabs were willing to work in the system as long as they got what they wanted. When they didn’t get it, they called the entire setup illegal and unjust. Jefferson Davis would be proud.
6. And whereas Palestine is an Arab country falling in the heart of the Arab countries and attached to the Arab world with all bonds spiritual, historical, economical and strategical, the Arab States as well as Eastern countries, whether through their people or governments, could not but concern and interest themselves with the fate of Palestine. This is why they took upon themselves the task of handling its case before the international institutions generally and particularly before Great Britain, insisting upon a solution for the problem based upon undertaking given to them and upon democratic principles. A round-table conference was held early in 1939 in London in which the Arab States took part asking for the safeguarding of the independence of Arab Palestine as a whole. That conference resulted in the issue of the well-known White Paper in which Great Britain defined its policy towards Palestine, admitting its right to independence while laying down at the same time certain provisions for the exercise of such independence. Great Britain did therein further declare that its obligations regarding the establishment of the Jewish National Home have been completely fulfilled as the said National Home had been established. But unfortunately the underlying policy of the White Paper was not carried out, which led to an increasingly bad situation and, in fact, resulted in complete prejudice and disregard to Arab interests.
This is both true and misleading. There was a White Paper issued. It’s at the Avalon Project. I suggest you read it. It’s a magnificent writing of diplomacy and governmental understanding. But to say that it mandated that the Entirety of Palestine become an ARAB nation is misleading. It called for the creation of a state that was arab and jewish together. It called for jewish voice in the government. It called for the understanding that jews should be allowed to own land, and it put an end to any control on immigration.
Both sides basically told Britian to shove it. The arabs refused to accept any deal that gave the jews any vote in any government. The jews demanded that the British hold to their long held policy of creating an independent jewish state. But that’s not the whole story either. The Paper, and the conference that created it, were done because the arabs were demanding that they get their state immediately and they were worried that the British were going to declare the entirety of the mandate as a jewish state. They were never going to do that. In fact, there is a pretty growing speculation that the conference was designed to allow the jews and arabs to tell the British to go screw so that they could implement their plan of duel states and look like they settled a compromise. The White Paper calls for adherence to the Balfour Declaration, which called for a jewish state, and was enshrined in international policy through the LoN.
And in the end, the Paper was rescinded as a policy by the British government almost as quickly as it was made public. So, the paper that the writer relies on called for something much different then what he described, was not agreed to by either jews or arabs, and was effectively destroyed shortly after it was made by the British. Again, the arabs want us to be led by the demands of the British in 1939, but not 1940 when they rescinded the paper.
7. During the time that the Second World War was raging the respective Governments of the Arab States began to co-ordinate their views and actions for the useful purpose of better securing co-operation regarding not only their present and future but for playing their part in the establishment of lasting world-wide peace. The problem of Palestine did not at any time during their mutual consultations fail to absorb its due share of attention and interest. It was a result of those consultations that then emerged the present Arab League as instrument for the realization of their own peace, security and welfare. The Arab League Charter declared that Palestine had become an independent country since its separation from the Ottoman Empire, but that all the appertaining external rights and privileges attendant upon formal independence had to be subdued temporarily for reasons beyond the will of its people. It was a happy coincidence which gave rise to the hopes of the Arab States then that at that time the United Nations was brought to existence soon after. And accordingly the Arab States unhesitatingly participated in its creation and membership out of deep belief in that institution, its ideals, and high aims.
Lies, mistruths, and lies.
The arabs did not fully support the allies. There were many that supported the Axis powers, and called for open jihad against the Allies as late as 1941. Further, the Arab states did not have the power to declare Palestine as an independent nation because they did not control Palestine. The British still did through the mandate of the LoN which they got in the Treaty of Versailles and the rest of the treaties that ended WWI, which were all incorporated into the charter of the UN, which recognized the previous powers of the mandate allies such as Britian to control the mandated lands. In short, the British empire controlled the area until it said it didn’t anymore. No Arab League had the power to do what the writer claims they did. They simply never had the power. To base any further argument on in is absurd and will not be entertained by me.
And his last sentence again says a lot. They signed on to the UN charter because they saw its charter as something that would call for a fully and totally arab Palestine. Again, they banked on their support for the winner leading to what they wanted. It would have all been nice and legitimate if they got what they wanted. But since they didn’t get everything they wanted, it all was illegitimate and illegal. Balony.
8. Since then the Arab League, through its member States, unceasingly endeavoured by all its means, whether with the Mandatory or with the United Nations, to find a fair and just solution for the problem of Palestine, based on democratic principles and consistent with the provisions of the League of Nations Covenant as well as of the United Nations Charter, a solution which would be lasting and would ensure peace and security in the land leading to prosperity, but such solution invariably conflicted with opposition from Zionists and with their demands as they then started to openly declare their insistence upon a Jewish State and in fact bent upon full preparations with arms and fortifications to impose their own solution by force.
Utter and total bull####. The arabs were being peaceful but the jews were arming to kill all. It’s absurd. There were attacks on both sides, against both sides. This paragraph is absolute crap and not worth my time. Especially considering the facts that the writer has so far conveniently forgotten to mention.
Further, the arabs that this man speaks for did not care about fairness, and justice, and democracy. They wanted simple power and control under their own terms, and only their own terms. Period. Anything else was not acceptable. Anything less was no legal. If they didn’t get everything they wanted, then the entire system set up to try to give them what they wanted was illegal. The ability to warp a mind a mind into thinking this is a logical position or one that even deserves to be recognized as something close to legitimate is hysterical.
9. When the General Assembly made its recommendations on 29 November 1947 for the solution of the Palestine problem on the basis of partition providing for the establishment of two States, one Arab and one Jewish, with an international regime of trusteeship for the City of Jerusalem, the Arab States expressed the warning that such a solution was prejudicial to the rights of the Arab inhabitants of Palestine to independence and was contradictory to democratic principles and to the League of Nations as well as the United Nations Charter. The Arabs then rejected such a scheme declaring that it was not susceptible of execution by peaceful means and that its imposition by force constituted a threat to peace and security in this area.
“When we didn’t get every single thing we wanted, we told the Unto shove it, we’ll take it by force.”
Welcome to the arguments of Yasser Arafat, circa 1994.
The apprehensions of the Arab States proved to be well founded as the disturbances of which they had warned soon swept the country, and armed conflict took place between its two peoples who started to combat against each other and shed each other's blood. Consequently, the United Nations realized the mistake upon which the recommendation of partition was made and turned to search for an outlet.
This is serious lunacy. The arabs opened war because they didn’t get everything they wanted, and then the UN realized they screwed up. Basically, he’s saying, “See, I told you that if you didn’t give me everything I wanted, I was going to shoot you, and then blame you, so don’t act surprised now that I’ve done it.”
And the UN at this point begins to seriously lose focus of the previous 60 years of this mandate because over the next 20 years, they allowed for the passage of several resolutions calling for Israel to stop attacking the arabs, even though the arabs started it and the jews were defending themselves; calling Zionism racism; allowing members to speak on the floor in front of the full assembly who openly claimed that the only way a jew can go to heaven is to drink the blood of an arab child, and on and on and on. Simply put, the UN became useless. I don’t necessarily think it is the fault of the UN itself, but of its own format. There are simply more anti-jewish states in the assembly then pro-jewish. It’s common sense really. As soon as the UN began to exercise the power it had under its charter, it was going to become an anti-semitic organization. It did, and it shouldn’t surprise anyone.
But, back to the writer. Absurd is an understatement.
10. Now that the Mandate over Palestine has come to an end, leaving no legally constituted authority behind in order to administer law and order in the country and afford the necessary and adequate protection to life and property, the Arab States declare as follows:
This is actually true – again, British colonial rule really, really sucked. I mean, really sucked. All throughout the world.
They allowed for the formation of the jewish state, and then allowed the remaining lands to be controlled by themselves without any formation of government as required by the mandate. The British pooched the screw here big time. They simply didn’t follow through. There is no denying that.
(a) The right to set up a Government in Palestine pertains to its inhabitants under the principles of self-determination recognized by the Covenant of the League of Nations as well as the United Nations Charter;
The LoN allowed for the recognition of a Jewish state. Here, the writer is agreeing with that even though he doesn’t see it.
(b) Peace and order have been completely upset in Palestine, and, in consequence of Jewish aggression, approximately over a quarter of a million of the Arab population have been compelled to leave their homes and emigrate to neighbouring Arab countries. The prevailing events in Palestine exposed the concealed aggressive intentions of the Zionists and their imperialistic motives, as clearly shown in their acts committed upon those peaceful Arabs and villagers of Deer Yasheen, Tiberias, and other places, as well as by their encroachment upon the building and bodies of the inviolable consular codes, manifested by their attack upon the Consulate in Jerusalem.
Sorry, any attempt to start a conversation with “Jewish aggression” gets the BS smilie. The jews didn’t fire first, and this paragraph oddly leaves out all the atrocities of the arabs.
© The Mandatory has already announced that on the termination of the Mandate it will no longer be responsible for the maintenance of law and order in Palestine except in the camps and areas actually occupied by its forces, and only to the extent necessary for the security of those forces and their withdrawal. This leaves Palestine absolutely without any administrative authority entitled to maintain, and capable of maintaining, a machinery of administration of the country adequate for the purpose of ensuring due protection of life and property. There is further the threat that this lawlessness may spread to the neighbouring Arab States where feeling is already very tense on account of the prevailing conditions in Palestine. The respective members of the Arab League, and as Members of the United Nations at the same time, feel gravely perturbed and deeply concerned over this situation.
Again, this is true. But know what happened? Instead of the arab peoples of the area bading together to take care of themselves and form governments and social programs, they decided to simply cry havoc, blame the jews and set forth in motion decades of war. The arab governments, especially the Kingdom of Jordan, could have absorbed the entirety of the remaining mandate and taking care of what was basically its own people, but they didn’t. The Kind of Jordan actually took the opportunity to slaughter thousands of his own people, and turn many of his own people in the refugees that have since become the “Palestinians.”
But again, the British pooched the screw. The arabs in the remaining mandate could have formed a government, set up a nation, and as the LoN called for, begin to self govern themselves. They had the ability. They chose to make war against the jews who had be given control of roughly, what, 10% of the entire mandate? Less? And it was the crap land too.
So, in the span of 25 years, the arabs were given the opportunity for a real and lasting government several times and each time turned it down because it was not 100% of what they were previously promised. They then call the entire system illegal, and declare open war – because they didn’t get everything they wanted.
(d) It was the sincere wish of the Arab States that the United Nations might succeed in arriving at a fair and just solution of the Palestine problem, thus establishing a lasting peace for the country under the precepts of the democratic principles and in conformity with the Covenant of the League of Nations and the United Nations Charter.
No it wasn’t. It was the sincere wish that the UN remove all land charters from the jews and give all the land to the arabs and foreclose any jew from ever serving in a position of authority in the region. They were never going to get that under British control, their protestations aside.
(e) They are responsible in any ... by virtue of their responsibility as members of the Arab League which is a regional organization within the meaning of Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations. The recent disturbances in Palestine further constitute a serious and direct threat to peace and security within the territories of the Arab States themselves. For these reasons, and considering that the security of Palestine is a sacred trust for them, and out of anxiousness to check the further deterioration of the prevailing conditions and to prevent the spread of disorder and lawlessness into the neighbouring Arab lands, and in order to fill the vacuum created by the termination of the Mandate and the failure to replace it by any legally constituted authority, the Arab Governments find themselves compelled to intervene for the sole purpose of restoring peace and security and establishing law and order in Palestine.
This is actually a clever argument. The outside arab armies are not breaking any law because there is a power vacuum that must be filled lest civil war spread. It’s a pretty good argument. But if you put a silk blanket on a pig you still have a pig. And those armies were not moving into the region to maintain peace. They were there to kill jews. This paragraph is nothing more then propaganda (most of this is, but this one is clear.)
The Arab States recognize that the independence and sovereignty of Palestine which was so far subject to the British Mandate has now, with the termination of the Mandate, become established in fact, and maintain that the lawful inhabitants of Palestine are alone competent and entitled to set up an administration in Palestine for the discharge of all governmental functions without any external interference. As soon as that stage is reached the intervention of the Arab States, which is confined to the restoration of peace and establishment of law and order, shall be put an end to, and the sovereign State of Palestine will be competent in co-operation with the other States members of the Arab League, to take every step for the promotion of the welfare and security of its peoples and territory.
100% wrong premise. The Arab States do not have that power, and didn’t when they claim they did. They attempted to make this declaration when the British were still in control of the mandate. Clearly, they could not. If they want to try to claim that in the power vacuum they did have some legitimate right to do so, then I might be able to buy that. However, the British had already conceded the creation of the Jewish state before they left the area, necessitating the voiding of the mandate.
And that’s if the mandate was ever properly voided. Give the events that transpired, it isn’t a clear cut case that it was. Nonetheless, the arab states had no authority to make this declaration. And they clearly had no power to dictate that the entire original mandate was its own independent country, because the British already partitioned the original mandate.
The Governments of the Arab States hereby confirm at this stage the view that had been repeatedly declared by them on previous occasions, such as the London Conference and before the United Nations mainly, the only fair and just solution to the problem of Palestine is the creation of United State of Palestine based upon the democratic principles which will enable all its inhabitants to enjoy equality before the law, and which would guarantee to all minorities the safeguards provided for in all democratic constitutional States affording at the same time full protection and free access to Holy Places. The Arab States emphatically and repeatedly declare that their intervention in Palestine has been prompted solely by the considerations and for the aims set out above and that they are not inspired by any other motive whatsoever. They are, therefore, confident that their action will receive the support of the United Nations as tending to further the aims and ideals of the United Nations as set out in its Charter.
The London conference was the White Paper, which was not agreed to by the arabs and by the jews. Therefore, by definition, the arabs cannot therefore rely on its dictates. Further, it was repealed less then a year later.
The UN charter absorbed the charter and mandates of the LoN. The LoN absorbed the British policy and Declarations calling for an independent jewish state. While the British failed in their responsibility to govern the entire mandate until formal governments were maintained, they did allow the formation of the Kingdom of Jordan, and they did form Israel.
But the arabs do not agree that the British had any power to do any of that, for the simple fact that they didn’t get every single thing they wanted.
The entirety of the arguments of this writer, and of the many many people not only in the threads on this board but in actual diplomatic negotiations that are above the pay grade of anyone here, is that:
1. The British promised the arabs a state.
2. The British did not give us our state under the terms we wanted.
3. Everything the British did was illegal, except their original promise to give us a state.
In an nutshell, that is the argument today. It’s absurd.
