Wow! This thread is filled with more genuine geniuses than MIT, Technion and Oxford -- put together! And not one of you pointed out that the UN and the Obama dictatorship are serial law breakers! So put away your legal documents and historical narratives and simply be prepared for another war because that ignominious organization called the United Nations and the Islamist president of the United States are colluding as we type in a villainous attempt to eradicate Israel whether it's legal or not.

Ron....didn't happen. Obama supplied Israel with more and better weapons than ever before. Israel is not a partisan issue. The US has never abandoned another democracy...and will defend and support Israel as long a necessary...no matter who is president.

The rights that the Jews wanted saved in Article 80 are those that were listed in a memorandum of April, 1945 to the Committee drafting the proposed UN Charter. This was a Memorandum from the Jewish Agency (referred to in the Palestine Mandate) and signed by Chaim Weizmann. He refers specifically to the rights the US listed in a US proposal in a report of January 21, 1919 delivered to the US President and plenipotentiaries at the Paris Peace Talks. Here is an excerpt from it:

That this was also the understanding of the American Delegation at the Peace Conference appears from the Outline of Tentative Report and Recommendations prepared by the Intelligence Section of that Delegation, in accordance with instructions, for the President and Plenipotentiaries at the Peace Conference, dated January 21, 1919,which recommended:

"1. That there be established a separate state of Palestine.

"2. That this state be placed under Great Britain as a
Mandatory of the League of Nations.

"3. That the Jews be invited to return to Palestine and
settle there, being assured by the Conference of all proper assistance in so doing that may be consistent with the protection of the personal (especially the religious) and property rights of the non-Jewish population, AND BEING FURTHER ASSURED THAT IT WILL BE THE POLICY OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS TO RECOGNIZE PALESTINE AS A JEWISH STATE AS SOON AS IT IS A JEWISH STATE IN FACT. [emphasis added]. See also, Article 7 of 1933 Montevideo Convention on tacit recognition of statehood. Palestine was tacitly recognized by US Presidents Harding and Coolidge in 1922 and 1924 respectively.

This was a phased plan for reconstituting the Jewish Nation. The first phase was promoting Jewish immigration into Palestine, and the second phase was recognition of their national rights to set up a government and administer it if and when they attained a population majority and had the capability to meet the obligations for the exercise of sovereignty.

The US, the UK and the Zionist Organization all believed it would be a mistake to provide for immediate sovereignty. See, in addition to the foregoing memo, a British Foreign Office memo of December 19, 1917 explaining the Balfour Declaration and a short book written by Harry Sacher explaining the provisions of the Balfour Declaration that had been published in November, 1917. "A Jewish Palestine: the Jewish case for a British trusteeship.

In line with this President Wilson on March 3, 1919 declared: "I am persuaded that the Allied Nations with the fullest concurrence of our own Government and people are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundations of a Jewish Commonwealth."

MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED TO THE UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION , SAN FRANCISCO , CALIFORNIA , BY THE JEWISH AGENCY FOR PALESTINE APRIL, 1945. You can find it on-line at:
http://www.bjpa.org/Publica...

Did DURESS play a role in signing the above "memorandum of April, 1945 to the Committee drafting the proposed UN Charter"???????

"Duress. Unlawful pressure exerted upon a person to coerce that person to perform an act that he or she ordinarily would not perform. ... Duress also exists where a person is coerced by the wrongful conduct or threat of another to enter into a contract under circumstances that deprive the individual of his or her volition."

Israel stands in the way and is an obstacle to full Muslim domination of the Middle East

The West fears Islamic aggression (which has been going on since WW1), and is opting for appeasement. Propaganda is being used to try to convince people that Muslims in Israel, and in the Gaza Strip, West Bank, and Golan Heights, are being mistreated. Islamist forces have conducted maneuvers at the borders of Israel, and have continuously lobbed missiles into Israel. Islam constantly threatens Israel, often using language that proclaims a desire for the complete destruction of Israel. The Arab-Palestinians have spoken to the world, proclaiming parts of Israel to belong to them.

Peace in the Middle East is desired at any cost by the Western Appeasers. The unrest is being blamed on Israel. Islam promises that the Arab-Palestinian claims are the last they will make in Israel. If land is traded for peace, they say, then the unrest in the Middle East will ease, which is a delusion and not reality.

The Western Leaders, fearful that if the Muslims are not appeased the world could plunge into terrorism (which it has already and increasing daily), have decided they need to negotiate with the Arab-Palestinians, grant them the Statehood they suddenly desire, and grant them their demands for the purpose of a delusional peace.

As The West prepares for appeasement, the forces of jihadism are on the rise in Egypt, Syria, Libya, Turkey and Iran and extends to Pakistan, Afghanistan and former Russian states. Egypt's peace with Israel has been guaranteed by U.S. involvement, and land for peace. The treaty with Egypt was based on the proposition of the Sinai in 1982 for peace. The Islamists moving into position to gain power in Egypt places the treaty at risk. They have no intention of abiding by its provisions.

The concept of land for peace has failed, as it failed prior to WW2. Islamism does not care about land. Islamism only cares about the destruction of Israel, the destruction of non-Islamic societies, and ultimately the worldwide domination of Islam through a Muslim caliphate.

Israel gives land because they want the Arabs to abide by peace agreements. Israel craves peace, but deep down knows that it is not possible. Islam has made it loud and clear that land for peace is a one way street. Israeli land giveaways are permanent, but Islamic commitments to peace are revoked at any time.

With the current presidential administration in the United States, and the liberal socialists in control of the U.N. and Europe, Israel stands alone. No one plans to stand up for Israel's right to exist, as history has proven, the Jewish people have ultimately been abandoned by the world nations. The Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist parties are working to take an absolute majority in Egypt and other Muslim countries, but The West has fallen for the propaganda that claims these parties are moderate and pragmatic. ISIS has proven that this approach is wrong and detrimental to peaceful coexistence.

The fact is, the rising Islamist control over the Muslim nations has no intention of respecting treaties, or Israel's right to exist. They are waiting for conflict, and then will blame it on Israel. Talks are doomed to failure. The Islamists want it that way or the highway.

Land for Peace fails. Liberalism fails. Only a strong and direct military posture with no-holds-barred that stands up against the rising threat will succeed. . . but the appeasers refuse to learn from history, and like Neville Chamberlain with Germany, Barack Obama and his fellow appeasers are positioning the world for a new world conflict that could turn the world to ashes.

A viable solution for the conflict is: Two States - Greater Israel for the Jewish people as guaranteed by International law and treaties after WW1 and Jordan that was originally part of the territory allocated to the Jewish people under 1920 international treaties, thus Jordan has 75% of its people are Arab-Palestinians and the 120,000 sq. km. or 72,000 sq. mi. (6 times the size of Israel) the Arab countries confiscated from the million plus Jewish families they persecuted and expelled from Arab countries and confiscated all their assets, businesses, homes and Real estate property valued in the trillions of dollars. That should settle the refugee problem once and for all. But the Arabs will not be satisfied until they get all of Israel without the Jews and they do not hide their intention.

YJ Draiman.

Greater Israel belongs to the Jewish people under International Law!
The Jewish People's historical right to the land of Greater Israel had been recognized by the international community and upheld by the rule of public international law.
Any view that contradicts this statement is pure distortion of the facts and history.
Israel is not obliged to support the creation of an Arab state west of the Jordan river alongside Israel and it must not concede to any such arrangement or the security and survival of Israel will be compromised.
The Oslo Agreements were made with a view to enhance "a just, lasting and comprehensive peace." Yet, since their coming into effect the Middle East has witnessed not peace but violence of the worst kind in recent history. As of today the Oslo agreement is null and void. The Arab Palestinians have not lived up to any of the agreement. The Arab Palestinians promote, preach and teach their children and the masses to create terror, violence and suicide bombing. Their only goal is the destruction of the Jewish State, read the Palestinian and Hamas Charter.
The establishment of the Palestinian Authority should serve as a "guide to the bewildered" of the grave risks posed by such an Arab State, which may eventually lead to the destruction of the Jewish State. Any land for peace compromise by Israel has made the situation worse. Sadly, appeasement and concessions by Israel only aggravated the situation and increased violence. Israel must stand its ground, resist unjust world pressure and protect its citizens at all costs. Any concessions by Israel will only make the situation worse and bring about more violence and death, as the past experience has proven.
Under public international law, Israel is entitled to diligently encourage and promote close Jewish settlement of the land of Israel, thereby realizing the principles set out by the San Remo Treaty of 1920 and the League of Nations in the original Mandate document. In 1922 in violation of the treaty, the British gave away 80% of the land allocated to the Jewish people and gave it to the Arabs to set-up a state that never existed in history. (The British wanted to protect their oil interests).
In addition at that time, the Allied powers also set up 21 Arab States and one Jewish State. If you questions Israel's borders, you must question the 21 Arab States borders and Jordan.
It is also important to address the expulsion of over a million Jewish people from the Arab countries and the confiscation of land owned by Jewish people in the Arab countries, totaling 120,000 sq. km. (4 times the size of Israel) valued at over 15 trillion dollars and other personal assets confiscated by the Arabs totaling over 990 billion dollars.
The Jewish people resettled the million Jewish refugees from the Arab countries. It is about time the Arab countries who expelled the million Jewish people, must settle the Arab-Palestinian refugees once and for all without compromising Israel and bring about peace and tranquility to the region.
Neither the U.N. nor any Country in the world has the authority to create a state or dissolve a state, (check the U.N. charter and international law.)
A true peace will bring about an economic boom to the region of which the world has never seen before. It will raise the standard of living for all the people in the Middle East and accelerate peace and harmony.
It will also divert the billions of dollars invested in war materials to be used to advance the economy, medical and social services and more.
YJ Draiman

"Greater Israel belongs to the Jewish people under International Law!"

Repeating and repeating your mantra does not change the Declaration.

Re: Israel - To whom it may concern in Europe, Asia, the US and elsewhere:

We are tired of hearing that withdrawal from Judea and Samaria will bring peace. We know and you know that it would bring another Gaza. So stop saying it and promoting this fallacy. Past experience has proven that concessions, appeasement and land for peace only increased terror, violence and more conflict.

We are tired of hearing that land beyond the Green Line is 'Arab-Palestinian land'. The Green Line is simply an armistice line that has no political significance. You know this too. The San Remo Treaty of 1920 Granted the Mandate for Palestine to the Jewish people, the same Allied powers also established 21 Arab States and one Jewish State - The Arabs are not willing to give up any part of the 21 Arab States and the Jews are not willing to give up any part of the Jewish State.

We are tired of hearing about the "Arab-Palestinian people." They are no different from the Arabs of Syria or Egypt, from which most of their ancestors migrated in the last 150 years or so. There is no Palestinian language or religion, and until very recently they considered themselves simply 'Arabs'. Their culture is almost entirely defined by their opposition to the Jewish state. Teaching hate and terror to their children. There never was an Arab-Palestinian State or people in History. The Arab Palestinians have a State in Jordan which is 80% of the land originally allocated to the Jewish people under the San Remo Treaty of 1920.

We are tired of hearing that "the Arab-Palestinians deserve a state." We are indigenous here, not them, and their behavior entitles them more to a trial at The Hague than to a state. The Arab Palestinians have a State it is called Jordan which was carved out of Jewish allocated land in 1922.

And they certainly don't deserve our state, which is the only state they want. They already took 80% of Jewish allocated land which is Jordan. Israel also gave them the Gaza Strip.

We are tired of hearing about 'The Occupation'. As Minister Naftali Bennett said the other day, you can't be an occupier in your own land. The Arabs are the occupiers, Greater Israel has been a Jewish state for 4,000 years even if it was temporarily conquered and occupied by various nations over the centuries.

We are tired of hearing that "settlements are illegal under international law." They are not. The San Remo Treaty of 1920 explicitly stated that Jewish people can reside anywhere in the Mandate for Palestine, those terms are set in perpetuity.

We are tired of hearing that "settlement construction is an obstacle to peace." Arab rejectionism and terrorism and suicide bombing is the reason there is no peace. When the Arab-Palestinians teach and preach hate, terror and destruction to their children, this is definitely not a road to peace and coexistence.

By the way, we are pro-peace. We are just not pro-suicide and self destruction.

We are tired of hearing about the 5 million (or whatever ridiculous number there are alleged to be) 'Arab-Palestinian refugees' or the 'Arab-Palestinian Diaspora'. There were about 600,000 Arabs that left their homes in 1948, mostly of their own volition, more or less at the same time as the over 980,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries, of which the Arabs confiscated their homes and assets. We resettled ours with limited land and resources — resettle yours, the 21 Arab states have more land and resources. The Arab dis-information must be ignored.

We are tired of hearing anything from anyone associated with the U.N. The U.N. is a parasitic and criminal enterprise dominated by our mortal enemies. The U.N. cannot create states, it can only recommend and so can other nations only recommend and not create a state that never existed before in history. If they want an Arab-Palestinian state, it already exists, it is Jordan which has taken 80% of Jewish allocated land.

We are tired of stupid post-colonialist rhetoric. We are not 'colonists' and Arabs do not have the right to murder us in the name of 'resistance' or beheading Jewish Rabbi's in Jerusalem's Har Nof Synagogue. Talking this way reveals you as moral imbeciles. They train their children to be suicide bombers. The Arabs are the colonialists.

You can not recognize a state and people that never existed and that has no borders, no single government, and no economy. They are not trusted by Arab states either.

We know we can not depend on any kind of security guarantee from anyone except the Israel Defense Forces. So stop being insulted because we do not trust you. And do not ask us to give up any nuclear weapons we might or might not have or any other method and technology that could help protect us.

We know that the left-wing parties in Israel are bankrupt of ideas. We are not going to vote for them, no matter how much you would like us to. So do not bother trying to influence our election. We will only vote for a government that protects its people and cares about the Jewish heritage, more than it cares for world opinion.

Don't believe what you read in Ha'aretz newspaper, they represent a minority that has no allegiance to the Jewish heritage.

Jerusalem, undivided, is the capital of the state of Israel. Get used to it, because you can't change it, the Jewish temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem.

Sincerely,

Ordinary Israelis who care about their heritage.

Posted by: Draiman

Excellent post. This American supports you fully and am ashamed and terrified by my presisdent's actions. My desperate hope is that we get a republican in 2016 and things will be better for Israel. Shalom.

Lynn Harrison.....did Israel lose 1 square inch when Obama was president?

"The San Remo Treaty of 1920 Granted the Mandate for Palestine to the Jewish people"?

Suggest that you study the English Language further, YJ...... or stop taking the money.

I believe your key statement '... .It should be common knowledge that under the Mandate, all of Palestine was reserved exclusively for the establishment of the Jewish National Home..' to be not only false, but dangerously false. ------ Even if we leave aside the very questionable from legal stand point assertion that the San Remo declaration takes precedence over the later UN resolution 181, ... the San Remo declaration does not says what you claim it says. Specifically, it repeats the sentence from Balfour declaration about establishing the Jewish national home IN Palestine, not making the whole Palestine a Jewish state.----------------------------------- Later it was clarified: '...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. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the 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." In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development"'...------ I am sure you recognize this document.

Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed with a caveat provided the Arabs accept the terms and the Jewish State - But the Arabs refused to accept the terms which may the statement by the Jewish organization null and void.
The U.N. is a useless organization and counter-productive – Issues Non-binding resolutions with no legal standing that includes the ICJ advisory only.
The U.N. cannot create State or modify borders, they have no such authority.
In a Democratic legal system if you have decision that you think is erroneous or unjust you can appeal that decision and many times it is reversed.
U.N. opinions and or resolutions are (non-binding) biased, unjust, arbitrary and capricious (the same apply to the ICJ – International Court of Justice).
The U.N. has issued numerous opinions and non-binding resolutions that are biased, unsubstantiated and contrary to historical and factual evidence. This U.N. collusion with corrupt and biased countries and the issuance of non-binding egregious opinions and resolution has eroded the credibility of the U.N. beyond repair.
This has raised the ire and an outcry by many nations, politicians and institutions to de-fund the U.N. and dismantle it.
YJ Draiman

77% of Mandatory Palestine was given to create the Arab Kingdom of Jordan, leaving 23% on the West Bank for the Jewish national home. I believe Churchill took this decision to divide Palestine because there could not be a Jewish majority state otherwise. See Sir Martin Gilbert, 'Churchill and The Jews' (Simon and Schuster 2007, pages 50 and 292.)

Joseph Feld - correct ! When the state of Israel was proclaimed, it was within the Lines of The U.N. Partition Plan of 1947 because the Jews were a majority there (census) and because the Jews did not want to rule a majority of Arabs.

The United Nations had nothing to do with this decision; United Nations did NOT establish the State of Israel.

The U.N. does NOT possess the Power neither to establish or abolish states !

I rather doubt that the reason for truncating the Jewish National Home, at this juncture, had much to do with concern for a Jewish majority --- as Eastern [viz., transJordanian] Palestine was, apart from its migratory Bedouin, sparsely populated (by anybody). The reason more likely had to do with the fact that Churchill was in a tight spot at the time

Here's the gist of it:

Having defeated Faisal's forces at the Battle of Maysalun, the recent French grantee of the Syria Mandate had deposed Faisal --- who'd hastily been made "King of Syria" by its 2nd Parliament --- and had thrown him out of the country, virtually at gunpoint. As a booby prize, the Brits gave him the throne of Iraq.

However, Iraq had been promised to Faisal's elder brother, Abdullah, and that little bit of footwork by the French & the Brits now left Abdullah odd-man-out. Whereupon Abdullah resolved, in his inimitably direct way, to rectify the situation. . . . As Colonial Secretary, Churchill greatly --- and most understandably --- feared the geopolitical consequences of Abdullah's intentions.

Churchill had taken special care to discourage Prince Abdullah: bent, at the time (on the face of it anyway), on avenging his brother’s ouster from Syria (and of course restoring the sullied family ‘honor’, etc, etc) — from continuing a contemplated & absurdly quixotic march on Damascus.

Abdullah had begun the campaign from Mecca at the end of September 1920, with a camel caravan manned by some 200 Bedouin raiders and thirty of Abdullah's Hijazi officers with their six Maxim guns.

At the Medina depot they commandeered a train northbound for Ma’an on the Hijaz
Railway and announced an impending “tour of inspection.” Upon arrival in late November, the Prince parked himself and his ‘army’ there for three months, while attempting to rally support among the tribes for the recovery of Syria from the French.

By the time he resumed his journey north — arriving in Amman in March 1921, and
augmented now by some 1500 Turkish ex-soldiers and Hijazi tribesmen — HMG had had time to brood about the expedition’s implications and to mull over Britain’s
options. It was, apparently, clear to Churchill that Abdullah’s energies & intentions would have to be redirected — for fear of the Emir’s effectively handing the French a pretext for sending in Les Poilus to seize Eastern Palestine, to safeguard what the latter quite naturally viewed as their Syrian interests, and perhaps take Western Palestine as well.

From the first, obligatory, annual Interim Report of Mandate Palestine’s first-ever Lord High Commissioner:

“…in the month of November [1920], His Highness, the Emir Abdullah, the second son of [Sharif] Hussein, arrived from the Hijaz at Ma’an, to the south of Trans- Jordania. His purpose was declared to be to restore a Sharifian government in Damascus. His arrival caused much disturbance in the minds of the people of Trans-Jordania and further impaired the authority, already slight, of the local authorities. From Ma’an the Emir proceeded on March 2nd to Amman, a town on the Hijaz Railway to the east of Salt, and there established his headquarters.

“The Secretary of State for the Colonies [Churchill] being in Palestine in the month of March, a Conference was held with the Emir, who came to Jerusalem for the purpose. An arrangement was reached…”

[Annual Interim Report of the Mandatory on the Civil Administration of Palestine During the Period, 1 July 1920 – 30 June 1921, as Presented to the Council of the League of Nations, by Sir Herbert Samuel, High Commissioner and Commander-in-Chief, on 30 July 1921]

Once in possession of Eastern Palestine, the French would have then been poised, should they be so tempted, to make a move on the oilfields of neighboring Kirkuk & Mosul (or, from Western Palestine, even on the Suez Canal).

Now, thus, in the interests of keeping the French out of the picture, as well as of
allaying any perceived popular home dissatisfaction with the burdens of retaining the Palestine Mandate (and in order to deflect the political manipulation of that apparent restiveness by the Cabinet’s parliamentary opponents), it was evident that a Transjordania separated from the rest of Palestine was clearly the easiest of maneuvers for the British Colonial Office (in cooperation with the Foreign Office), howsoever brazen the gambit, and notwithstanding the acknowledged economic interconnectedness of the two territories.

Churchill, though long & earnestly cordial to Zionist aims, and recently made Sec State for Colonial Affairs — the Colonial Office having been, at that juncture, recently assigned responsibility for the civilian Mandate Administration after that summer’s transfer of authority from OETA, which had been answerable to the Foreign Office (headed by the non-Zionist-congenial, Lord Curzon) — seems to have been given to understand (wrongly) by the empire-building, old hands in the Colonial Office’s
freshly-minted “Middle East Department”: particularly its Jew-loathing director, Sir John Evelyn Shuckburgh, as well as, of course, the not-altogether anti-Zionist but irrepressibly self-promoting & fanciful Col. Lawrence [of Arabia], and other careerist, imperial functionaries from the colonies — that HMG not only were greatly ‘indebted’ to the Arabs but had, moreover, actually ‘promised’ transJordanian Palestine to the Hashemites during the War.

It was by no means so — on either count. With his typical (and most enviable) succinctness, Prof Michael Cohen of UC Berkeley comes right to the point: “Whereas the British undoubtedly incurred some moral commitments to the cause of Arab independence in 1915, the Husayn-McMahon correspondence can in no sense be regarded as an agreement legally binding on either side.”

[Michael J. Cohen, Origins and Evolution of the Arab-Zionist Conflict (Univ of Calif. Press, Berkeley, 1987), p. 24]

But Churchill was new in the job and Shuckburgh’s bureaucrats, well-seasoned & firmly-entrenched: particularly aided, as these avowed colonialists and unblushing, down-the-line, imperialists were, by a newfound righteousness characterized by straight-faced moralizing about the inherent ‘unfairness’ of imposing ‘alien’ Jews on the local Arabs — instead, presumably, of imposing an alien Abdullah on them — to say nothing of sanctimonious bloviating and prissy, priggish preachifying about keeping HMG’s ‘promises’ — by trashing the solemnly articulated and duly ratified pledges of the San Remo Resolution and the Balfour Declaration, and now, even before its formal ratification & implementation, those of the Mandate as well.

UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, the decision to amputate was expedient and altogether “safe,” as it were, since the Jews (as the party with the greatest direct
interest in opposing the surgery) were powerless to prevent it, or believed they were (which, in context, amounted to much the same thing):

--- "The Zionist leaders were stunned by the threatened lopping off of three quarters of the area of the projected Jewish National Home; its establishment had, after all, been Britain’s warrant for being granted the Mandate. But the British government countered with the proposal that, if the Zionists did not accept the situation, Britain would decline the Mandate altogether and thus withdraw her protection from the Jewish restoration.

--- "[Now, however, t]he Zionist leaders—struggling with the material problem of building a country out of a desert and restoring a people, largely impoverished, from the four corners of the world — were moreover inadequately equipped with political experience to judge the emptiness of the British threat. They did not feel strong enough to resist this blow to the integrity and security of the state-in-building and to
their faith in the sanctity of compacts."

[Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine (Bantam, NY, 1973; 3d Edition, Steimatzky, NY, 1985), p. 57]

There's somewhat more to be said, but this post is already overlong, and I've given you the action. The rest is all dénouement. The gouging out of transJordanian Palestine from the Jewish National Home was essentially (IMABHO) Churchill's way of extricating himself and the govt he served from a difficult situation.

"I believe Churchill took this decision to divide Palestine because there could not be a Jewish majority state otherwise."

That would seem unlikely to be the reason, as Transjordanian Palestine, apart from migratory Bedouin, was sparsely populated (by anybody).

More likely, the reason had to do with the fact that Churchill was in a tight spot at the time. After defeating Faisal's forces at the battle of Maysalun, the French Mandatory had thrown Faisal --- recently made "king" of Syria by its 2nd Congress --- out of the country, virtually at gunpoint. As a booby prize, the Brits gave him the throne of Iraq.

However, Iraq had been promised to his elder brother Abdullah, who now found himself odd-man-out. Abdullah resolved to recover Syria (to say nothing of the sullied family honor, etc) from the French. Abdullah had begun the campaign from Mecca at the end of September 1920, with a camel caravan manned by 30 officers, a couple hundred Bedouin raiders, and six Maxim guns.

At the Medina depot, he commandeered a train northbound for Ma’an and announced an impending “tour of inspection.” Upon arrival in Ma'an, the Prince parked himself and his ‘army’ there for three months, while attempting to rally support among the tribes for the recovery of Syria from the French.

By the time Abdullah resumed his journey north — arriving in Amman in March 1921, and augmented now by some 1500 Turkish ex-soldiers & Hijazi tribesmen — HMG had had time to brood over the expedition’s implications and mull over Britain’s options. It was, apparently, clear to Churchill that Abdullah’s energies & intentions would have to be redirected --- for fear of the Emir’s effectively handing the French a pretext for sending in les poilus to seize Eastern [viz., transjordanian] Palestine, to safeguard what the latter quite naturally viewed as their Syrian interests, and perhaps take Western Palestine as well.

From the first, obligatory, annual Interim Report of Mandate Palestine’s first-ever Lord High Commissioner:

“…in the month of November [1920], His Highness, the Emir Abdullah, the second son of [Sharif] Hussein, arrived from the Hijaz at Ma’an, to the south of Trans-Jordania. His purpose was declared to be to restore a Sharifian government in Damascus. His arrival caused much disturbance in the minds of the people of Trans-Jordania and further impaired the authority, already slight, of the local authorities.

"From Ma’an the Emir proceeded on March 2nd to Amman, a town on the Hijaz Railway to the east of Salt, and there established his headquarters. The Secretary of State for the Colonies [Churchill] being in Palestine in the month of March, a Conference was held with the Emir, who came to Jerusalem for the purpose. An arrangement was reached…”

[Annual Interim Report of the Mandatory on the Civil Administration of Palestine During the Period, 1 July 1920 – 30 June 1921, as Presented to the Council of the League of Nations, by Sir Herbert Samuel, High Commissioner and Commander-in-Chief, on 30 July 1921]

Once in possession of Eastern Palestine, the French would have then been poised, should they be so tempted, to make a move on the oilfields of neighboring Kirkuk &
Mosul (or, from Western Palestine, on the Suez Canal).

Now, thus, in the interests of keeping the French out of the picture, as well as of
allaying any perceived popular home dissatisfaction with the burdens of retaining the Palestine Mandate (and in order to deflect the political manipulation of that apparent restiveness by the Cabinet’s parliamentary opponents), it was evident that a Transjordania separated from the rest of Palestine was clearly the easiest of
maneuvers for the British Colonial Office (in cooperation with the Foreign Office), howsoever brazen the gambit, and notwithstanding the acknowledged economic interconnectedness of the two territories.

Churchill, though long & earnestly cordial to Zionist aims, and recently made Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs — the Colonial Office having been, at that
juncture, recently assigned responsibility for the civilian Mandate Administration after that summer’s transfer of authority from OETA, which had been answerable to the Foreign Office (headed by the less Zionist-congenial, Lord Curzon) — seems to have been given to understand (wrongly) by the empire-building, old hands in the Colonial Office’s freshly-minted “Middle East Department”: particularly its Jew-loathing director, Sir John Evelyn Shuckburgh, as well as, of course, the not-altogether anti-Zionist but irrepressibly self-promoting & fanciful Col. Lawrence [of Arabia], and other careerist, imperial functionaries from the colonies — that HMG not only were greatly ‘indebted’ to the Arabs but had, moreover, actually ‘promised’ transJordanian Palestine to the Hashemites during the War.

However, it was by no means so — on either count. With his typical (and most enviable) succinctness, Prof Michael Cohen of UC Berkeley comes right to the point: “Whereas the British undoubtedly incurred some moral commitments to the cause of Arab independence in 1915, the Husayn-McMahon correspondence can in no sense be regarded as an agreement legally binding on either side.”

[Michael J. Cohen., Origins and Evolution of the Arab-Zionist Conflict (Univ of Calif. Press, Berkeley, 1987), p, 24] ]

But Churchill was new in the job and Shuckburgh’s bureaucrats, well-seasoned and
firmly-entrenched: particularly aided, as these avowed colonialists and unblushing, down-the-line, imperialists were, by a newfound righteousness characterized by straightfaced moralizing about the inherent ‘unfairness’ of imposing ‘alien’ Jews on the local Arabs — instead, presumably, of imposing an alien Abdullah on them — to say nothing of sanctimonious bloviating and prissy, priggish preachifying about keeping HMG’s ‘promises’ — by trashing the solemnly articulated and duly ratified pledges of the San Remo Resolution and the Balfour Declaration, and now, even before its formal ratification & implementation, those of the Mandate as well.

UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, the decision to amputate was expedient and altogether “safe,” as it were, since the Jews (as the party with the greatest direct
interest in opposing the surgery) were powerless to prevent it, or believed they were (which, in context, amounted to much the same thing):

--- "The Zionist leaders were stunned by the threatened lopping off of three-quarters of the area of the projected Jewish National Home; its establishment had, after all, been Britain’s warrant for being granted the Mandate. But the British government countered with the proposal that, if the Zionists did not accept the situation, Britain would decline the Mandate altogether and thus withdraw her protection from the Jewish restoration.

--- "[Now, however, t]he Zionist leaders — struggling with the material problem of building a country out of a desert and restoring a people, largely impoverished, from the four corners of the world — were moreover inadequately equipped with political experience to judge the emptiness of the British threat. They did not feel strong enough to resist this blow to the integrity and security of the state-in-building and to their faith in the sanctity of compacts."

--- [Shmuel Katz, Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine (Bantam, NY, 1973; 3d Edition, Steimatzky, NY, 1985), op cit., p. 57]

There's more to be said, but this post is already overlong, and I've given you the rising action --- the rest is strictly dénouement. In sum, the amputation of transJordanian Palestine from the Jewish National Home was Churchill's way of extricating himself from a tight spot (IMABHO).

"Later it was clarified"

More HIJACKED than 'clarified.' You are quoting from the 1922 Churchill White Paper, which represented HMG's position in attempting to deal with an understandably difficult situation with which it was confronted after it had been awarded the Palestine Mandate.

It did not represent, however, international law. THAT was created by the Principal Allied Powers when it generated the Mandate (and the San Remo Resolution that ordered the Mandate), and to which Powers --- in the person of the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission --- HMG were responsible and accountable.

Michael Rorer -
The International Court of Justice on June 21, 1971 - stated in an Advisory Opinion:

ADVISORY OPINION:

History of the Mandate

(paras. 42-86 of the Advisory Opinion)

Refuting the contentions of the South African Government and citing its own pronouncements in previous proceedings concerning South West Africa (Advisory Opinions of 1950, 1955 and 1956; Judgment of 1962), the Court recapitulates the history of the Mandate.

The mandates system established by Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations was based upon two principles of paramount importance: the principle of non-annexation and the principle that the well-being and development of the peoples concerned formed a sacred trust of civilisation. Taking the developments of the past half century into account, there can be little doubt that the ultimate objective of the sacred trust was self-determination and independence. The mandatory was to observe a number of obligations, and the Council of the League was to see that they were fulfilled. The rights of the mandatory as such had their foundation in those obligations.

When the League of Nations was dissolved, the raison d'etre and original object of these obligations remained. Since their fulfilment did not depend on the existence of the League, they could not be brought to an end merely because the supervisory organ had ceased to exist. The Members of the League had not declared, or accepted even by implication, that the mandates would be cancelled or lapse with the dissolution of the League.

The last resolution of the League Assembly and Article 80, paragraph 1, of the United Nations Charter maintained the obligations of mandatories. The International Court of Justice has consistently recognized that the Mandate survived the demise of the League, and South Africa also admitted as much for a number of years. Thus the supervisory element, which is an essential part of the Mandate, was bound to survive. The United Nations suggested a system of supervision which would not exceed that which applied under the mandates system, but this proposal was rejected by South Africa.

Resolutions by the General Assembly and the Security Council

- - - - - -

EGO: RAISON D'ETRE translated to: REASON TO BE !

/ tmk.

Face it - No Arab-Palestinian state west of the Jordan River
If you read the 1917 Balfour Declaration (Which emulated Napoleons 1799 letter to the Jewish community in Palestine promising that The National Home for The Jewish people will be reestablished in Palestine, as the Jews are the rightful owners). Nowhere does it state an Arab entity west of The Jordan River.
The San Remo Conference of April 1920 which incorporated The Balfour Declaration into International Law with no boundary restrictions it does not state an Arab entity west of The Jordan River, confirmed by Article 95 in the 1920 Treaty of Sevres which was signed by all the Allied Powers and the Treaty of Lausanne.
The Mandate for Palestine terms does not state an Arab entity west of the Jordan River. It specifically states a Jewish National Home in Palestine without limiting or restricting the Jewish territory in Palestine. It also states that the British should work with the Jewish Agency as the official representative of the Jews in Palestine to implement the National Home of the Jewish people in Palestine. I stress again; nowhere does it state that an Arab entity should be implemented west of the Jordan River.
As a matter of historical record, The British reallocated illegally over 77% of Jewish Palestine to the Arab-Palestinians in 1922 with specific borders and Jordan took over additional territory like the Gulf of Aqaba which was not part of the allocation to Jordan. The British also illegally and in violation of treaty, traded the Jewish Golan Heights to the French for the right to Iraq and its oil..
The United Nations resolutions are non binding with no legal standing it does not create an Arab Palestinian state and it has no authority to change the April 1920 San Remo treaty or modify the terms of the Mandate for Palestine which has the force of international law in perpetuity.

No where in any of the above stated agreements does it provides for an Arab entity west of the Jordan River. The U.N. and General Assembly resolutions are non-binding with no legal standing, same applies to the ICJ. The Oslo Accords are null and void as state by Mahmmoud Abbas at the U.N.

Israel must disband the Arab-PA and take back full control and sovereignty of all the territory west of the Jordan River – All of Judea and Samaria without delay. Time for talk is over. Now is the time for action to restore our Jewish sovereignty in all the Land of Israel and stop terror and violence.

It is time to relocate the Arabs in Israel to Jordan and to the homes and the over 120,000 sq. km. of Jewish land the Arab countries confiscated from the over a million Jewish families that they terrorized and expelled and those expelled Jews were resettled in Israel. They can use the trillions of dollars in reparations for the Jewish assets to finance the relocation of the Arabs and help set-up an economy and industry instead of living on the world charity. The Arab countries were allocated over 13 million sq. km. (6 million sq. miles) with a wealth of oil reserves.
YJ Draiman

P.S. Possession is nine tenths of the law – Israel has it.
Political Rights in Palestine aka The Land of Israel were granted only and exclusively to the Jews in all of Palestine and the right to settle in all of Palestine with no boundary exclusions.

The Jewish people’s war of survival was not won when Hitler lost. It continues to this day, against enemies with more effective tools of mass murder at their disposal.
Plus we are easy to find now.

"His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall 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". This was adopted by a dozen Major countries: U.S., France, China, Russia, Italy, Spain, Japan and the Vatican to name some.

The San Remo Conference of 1920, which incorporated the Balfour Declaration as international treaty and law; reconstituted the Jewish National Home in Palestine as international law; thus, they assigned its implementation to the League of Nation with the Mandate for Palestine and the British as trustee to promote Jewish immigration, development of the land and bring about the sovereign Jewish State in all of Palestine. These terms was confirmed by the 1920 Treaty of Sevres which terms were incorporated to the Mandate of Palestine.
The Jewish National Home in all of Palestine was reconstituted to take affect in 1920; with a provision that sovereignty will be reached when they become majority.
Faisal Weizmann Agreement signed January 3, 1919, stated that The Jewish National Home will be in what is known as Palestine.
The Inquiry academics accompanied President Wilson to Paris in 1919. For Palestine, they recommended that the dispersed Jewish People settle there and later, rule in Palestine. Initial rule was to be carried out by a trustee for the Jewish People (Great Britain under the Mandate for Palestine).
American Proposal for Jewish Homeland, January 21, 1919
An excerpt from the Tentative Report and Recommendations of the Intelligence Section of the American Delegation to the Peace Conference, in accordance with instructions, for the President and the Plenipotentiaries, January 21, 1919*
26. Palestine
It is recommended:
1) That there be established a separate state of Palestine.
2) That this state be placed under Great Britain as a mandatory of the League of Nations.
3) That the Jews be invited to return to Palestine and settle there being assured by the Conference of all proper assistance in so doing that may be consistent with the protection of the personal (especially the religious) and the property rights of the non-Jewish population, and being further assured that it will be the policy of the League of Nations to recognize Palestine as a Jewish state as soon as it is a Jewish state in fact.
4) That the holy places and religious rights of all creeds in Palestine are placed under the protection of the League of Nations and it’s mandatory.
For discussion:
1) It is recommended that there be established a separate state of Palestine.
The separation of the Palestinian area from Syria finds justification in the religious experience of mankind. The Jewish and Christian churches were born in Palestine, and Jerusalem was for long years, at different periods, the capital of each. And while the relation of the Mohammedans to Palestine is not so intimate, from the beginning they have regarded Jerusalem as a holy place. Only by establishing Palestine as a separate state can justice be done to these great facts.
As drawn upon the map, the new state would control its own source of water power and irrigation, on Mount Hermon in the east to the Jordan; a feature of great importance since the success of the new state would depend upon the possibilities of agricultural development.
2) It is recommended that this state be placed under Great Britain as a mandatory of the League of Nations.
Palestine would obviously need wise and firm guidance. Its population is without political experience, is racially composite, and could easily become distracted by fanaticism and bitter religious differences.
The success of Great Britain in dealing with similar situations, her relation to Egypt, and her administrative achievements since General Allenby freed Palestine from the Turk; all indicate her as the logical mandatory.
3) It is recommended that the Jews be invited to return to Palestine and settle there, being assured by the Conference of all proper assistance in so doing that may be consistent with the protection of the personal (especially the religious) and the property rights of the non-Jewish population, and being further assured that it will be the policy of the League of Nations to recognize Palestine as a Jewish state as soon as it is a Jewish state in fact.
It is right that Palestine should become a Jewish state, if the Jews, being given the full opportunity, make it such. It was the cradle and home of their vital race, which has made large spiritual contributions to mankind, and is the only land in which they can hope to find a home of their own; they being in this last respect unique among significant peoples.
At present, however, the Jews form barely a tenth of the total population of 550,000 in Palestine, and whether they are to form a majority, or even a plurality, of the population in the future state remains uncertain. Palestine, in short, is far from being a Jewish country now. England, as mandatory, can be relied on to give the Jews the privileged position they should have without sacrificing the rights of non-Jews.
4) It is recommended that the holy places and religious rights of all creeds in Palestine be placed under the protection of the League of Nations and it’s mandatory.
The basis for this recommendation is self-evident.

"These terms was confirmed by the 1920 Treaty of Sevres which terms were incorporated to the Mandate of Palestine."

Balfour was incorporated in the treaty ... not your wishful interpretation of it.

The main problem here is that the officials at the UN are so ignorant they can't even read and understand the UN Charter.

They know only too well, they have highly paid advisers, but they don't care. International law has no benefit to Israel. The British white paper of 1939 proved that Britain cared nothing for international law, even a sacred trust!

The Palestine Mandate did not expire in May, 1947. It was a trust. A trust does not expire when the trustee resigns. A trust lives on until the trust res vests in the cestui sue trust or beneficiary. SSRN.com/abstract=2385304 Palestine Mandate in a Nutshell http://www.israelnationalne...

"It should be common knowledge that under the Mandate, all of Palestine was reserved exclusively for the establishment of the Jewish National Home and future independent Jewish State, as was previously decided at the San Remo Peace Conference that took place in April 1920."

I don't understand how did the author of this article reach this ridiculous conclusion;

San Remo never said that the entire Palestinian Mandate was to be the Jewish homeland and it clearly said IN Palestine not ALL of Palestine nor did it mention a future independent state, not even Jewish self rule or sovereignty but homeland i.e. a place where Jews could immigrate and live WITHOUT affecting the rights of the existing non-Jewish communities.

"It should be common knowledge that under the Mandate, all of Palestine
was reserved exclusively for the establishment of the Jewish National
Home and future independent Jewish State, as was previously decided at
the San Remo Peace Conference that took place in April 1920."?

Didn't see the word 'all' in my copy of the Mandate...... is that pencilled in in your copy?

I am sorry but you are TOTALLY wrong. The 1917 Balfour Declaration enshrined verbatim in the 1920 San Remo Resolution by the League of Nations, very clearly states:

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a NATIONAL HOME FOR THE JEWISH PEOPLE, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice THE CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS RIGHTS OF THE EXISTING NON-JEWISH COMMUNITIES IN PALESTINE or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".

So, in answer to your WRONG arguments 1) the 1920 Resolution assigned the WHOLE MANDATE OF PALESTINE, including present day Kingdom of Jordan, to the establishment of a NATIONAL HOME for the Jewish people. Only in 1922 under pressure from Great Britain, the Land assigned to a future Jewish State was limited on the east, to the River Jordan, to accomodate east of the River in the approx. 75% remainder of the Mandate of Palestine, a Sheikhdom of Trans-Jordan given as reward to Hussein, the Sharif of the Mecca and King of Hejaz (Arabia) who was escaping the advancing hordes of the desert marauder Ibn Al-Saud.

2) The Balfour Declaration enshrined in both 1920 and 1922 League of Nations Resolutions speaks of a NATIONAL HOME only for the Jewish People, while for the NON-JEWISH COMMUNITIES in Palestine it only guarantees and specifically mention their CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS RIGHTS but not their National Rights.

A NATIONAL HOME of a people is quite obviously its NATIONAL STATE. Civil and Religious Rights have nothing to do with National Rights in Palestine that are reserved ONLY for the Jews of the world. Kapish?

You really don't understand English and its meaning do you, Enzo?

This is what the United States understood they were agreeing to:

“1) That there be established a separate state of Palestine.
2) That this state be placed under Great Britain as a mandatory of the League of Nations.
3) That the Jews be invited to return to Palestine and settle there being assured by the Conference of an proper assistance in so doing that may be consistent with the protection of the personal (especially the religious) and the property rights of the non-Jewish population, and being further assured that it will be the policy of the League of Nations to recognise [sic] Palestine as a Jewish state as soon as it is a Jewish state in fact.” http://www.eretzyisroel.org...

Harry Sacher published a short book in 1919 recommending a British trusteeship.
"A Jewish Palestine: the Jewish case for a British Trusteeship". This was adopted at San Remo, with careful British tailoring of language so as not to stir up the Arabs.

"property rights of the non-Jewish population"? .... and what happened to those rights at the hands of the Zionists?

It would have been foolish for the Bitish to explicitly provide for A Jewish state when all it needed to do was place the collective political rights in trust to vest when the Jews attained what they needed to become a stable democratic Jewish state. A trust agreement is normally self-executing. Why unnecessarily stir up the Arabs?

"...without affecting the civil or religious rights of the non Jewish communities..." The French wanted to amend the savings clause to add political rights but the others objected. The collective political rights were recognized as belonging to the Jews. But "civil rights" includes the right to vote in an election held by a government set up by the Jews and administered by them. That is the meaning of "national rights" or "collective rights to political self-determination". So the Jews were recognized as owning the collective political rights and both the Jews and non Jews kept their individual political rights.

Class A Mandates by definition vis a vis the League of Nations Charter are territories read for independence but in need of temporary administrative mentoring. That the League consigned Mandatory Palestine AS a Class A is how "Jewish State" is derived from "Jewish National Home." Moreover it was Class Sui Generis with Arabs not even mentioned as an afterthought. While the Mandate named the Jewish Agency as the indigenous governing entity it laid out absolutely no equivalent for Arabs. Jews were permitted to immigrate at will regardless whether Arabs agreed or not. The League provided two Class A Mandates for Arabs and if local Arabs did not like living in a Jewish nation they were free to migrate into those two Arab Class As.

Jews were permitted to emigrate at will. White Paper. Please renew your library card. Avalon research at Yale is a great resource for documents.

The first White Paper (Churchill White Paper) of 1922 has absolutely nothing to do with limiting Jewish immigration and one of the provisions thereby included is the following:
'During the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community, now numbering 80,000... it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on the 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 recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.'

The White Paper that limited Jewish immigration in Palestine is the 1939 White Paper.

Basically true. The Mandate's purpose was to facilitate the creation of a bi-national state. The Jewish homeland was to exist within this state. The Jewish state was created after Arab nationalists rejected both the bi-national option and the UN partition plan. That being said, the Arabs are due no more of what was Mandate Palestine than what was granted to them when the Trans-Jordan portion of the territories was made into the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. No other portion of the territories may be set aside for the creation of a solely Arab state or country without the consent of a duely elected representative of the Jewish people; which would be the government of the State of Israel.

Wrong. The Jews were given the right to immigrate to Palestine and apply for Palestinian citizenship. But it was specifically stated that the rights of the non-Jewish citizens of Palestine were not to be violated. They were never given Palestine, only the right to llive there. They have since taken, by force, a huge potion of land and made it exclusive to Jewish citizens, no Arabs allowed. This is a direct violation of the original agreement. They have no legal right to that land, whatever they might tell you. And Article 80 does not apply exclusively to the Jews. It doesn't even mention them. This is an attempt to twist and distort the historical facts to give people the impression that the illegal Jewish settlements are legal. And it is all in response to the UN recognizing the State of Palestine, something Israel very much does not want to have happen.

How can you say "no Arabs allowed" when 1.5 million Arabs live alongside Jews, Christians, Druze and Ba'hais in Israel?

The Apartheid of South Africa did not grant blacks rights; in Israel, Arabs are MPs and on the Supreme Court.

And who said that Arab israelus should be expelled from israel and "deported" to the West Bank?"

yes u hit the nail on the head. Now add the fact that G-D gave this land, all of it, to us. It is in the bible.

Also there is no such thing as a palestinian, only an arab who happens to be living in Israel. Tell it to Pres Obama.

The key phrase is "Palestinian People". Anyone who lives in the Palestine territory can be called a "Palestinian". The preamble to the 1964 PLO Charter defines who the Arabs call Palestinians and that keeps changing. Under international law you must have an unchanging definition. There was an Arab People in 1922 and there still is, but Lord Curzon who succeeded Balfour agreed that the Arabs had been rejected in their claim for national rights to Palestine. Curzon was no friend of the Jews.

There is no God.

If you think that the bible is an actual historical document,you need to have your head examined.

For sure David Hanson has not actually read the Torah (part of the old testament of the Protestant Bible).
The covenant with the prophet Abraham was for the descendents to live on the Land forever, and that includes the Arabs, since the first born Ishmael was of an Egyptian mother, Hajjar. Since polygamy was fashionable at the time, there is no priority to be given to the first wife Sarah, who was Sumarian in any case.

The Ishmaelites never were "Arabs" and in fact Ishmaelites intermarried with Arabs therefore it is erroneous to assert that the Arabs are Ishmael's descendants. It is more appropriate to say that some Arabs are descended from Ishmael than it is to say the all Arabs are descended from Ishmael. Guillaume's "The life of Muhammad", p. 46.
As to the Jewish National Home and the establishment of the modern state of Israel in Palestine under international law, the fact is when one reads the minutes from the San Remo Conference and the Anglo-American Treaty of 1924 the only conclusion one can come to is that the Mandate for Palestine was intended to facilitate the reconstitution of the ancient Jewish National Home and an Independent Jewish State in the area designated under the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement which included portions of the East "Bank" of the Jordan River up to the Hejaz Railway with a buffer zone between the railway and the Border of the Jewish National Home. Simply read Article 25 inserted in the Mandate for Palestine which was a temporary measure until such time as local conditions warranted Jewish settlement in the Eastern Portion of the Mandate Area. Emir Faisal specifically excluded the Western portion (west of the Hejaz Railway) of "Trans-Jordan" from the boundaries of the proposed Jewish State which he agreed to under the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement. Moreover, all he requested for his assistance in overthrowing the Ottoman Empire was an Independence for the Arabs from any foreign sovereign which he was given along with his family in the Mandate Areas of Iraq and Syria and included the Modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, from which they were kicked out since his Hashemite Family had ruled from Mecca since the 10th Century. Howard Grief has properly International Law on the subject and no one to date has presented a cogent argument which refutes his position!!!

Mazel Tov! Now lets ask the arabs to leave since they have claimed in overwhelming numbers to oppose any Jewish nation that safeguards the rights and property of Jews. In G-d I trust.

Indeed, ask the Palestinians to leave and go to the Emirates of Transjordan aka Jordan is Palestine. If they don’t know the way, this map may help them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

Th hypocrisy of the UN continues unabated.

Well, after studying the Bible for over 50 years, both Old and New Testaments, I would emphatically state that the Bible is the most accurate historical document known to man. Take the time to read the well respected historian and reporter, Josephus who's writings concur and confirm much of Scripture. The Bible has been used by archaeologist, historians, as well as theologians and found to be the most accurate document we have. With that said, God is very clear that HIs covenant promise of the land was to be to Abraham's descendents through his son Isaac who was born to his wife (accepted of God as his wife) and not Ismael who was the son of Hagar. "And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee! And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year." Balfour recognized the extent of the land that God had made promise to Abraham, to Isaac, to Jacob, and reminded Moses as He took him up on Mount Nebo and showed him the land. Why the political correctness, why the misinformation??? When will we truly seek truth and believe the truth and have the courage to state the truth. The land rightfully, by a far greater authority than the UN or the US or any other government belongs to the descendants of Abraham! I stand amazed that people are unable to see the promise of God to not only scatter Israel because of her disobedience, but also His promise to bless her and bring her back into the land for an everlasting covenant. It is remarkable and should cause many to sit up and pay attention to what is going on. Through the prophet Zechariah, God states, "Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem." (Zechariah 12:2) How true that is today! Jerusalem is a cup of trembling to the world, that little sliver of land, 14 % of what God promised!!! Pray for the peace of Jerusalem and may God help us see truth! It is not far from us!