Arabs recognized Israel - 1919

Enter Stage Right ^ | June 17, 2002 | Charles A. Morse

[Lent]

Okay, fine. Show me a document, British or League of Nations, that says the Jews are entitled to the entire area west of the Jordan. I read the text of the Peel Commission report and it does not such thing, anywhere, so contrary to your claim, you have not done so yet.

Here again you wish to constrain by your language. The Jews were "entitled" to settle anywhere under the rubrick of the "National Home for the Jews" - both east and west of the Jordan. In fact, the Declaration was explicitly sanctioned and accepted at the San Remo Conference by the League of Nations in 1920. Therefore, the "National Home for the Jews" was a legally binding notion which explicitly gave the Jews the right to settle anywhere in the British Mandate. That was what you prefaced your initial query on. The fact that the "National Home" became progressively whittled down by British compromise and duplicity doesn't vitiate the right given under Balfour and sanctioned at San Remo. The inevitability from "National Home" to statehood is almost implicit in the concept.

Finally, your statement about the "Peel Commission" is puzzling as:(1) I asked you to show me where this quote has been misread or misused from the Peel Commission;(2) You have misread the quote.

[traditionalist]

Where is the text you're relying on?

Follow the links in the webpage you referenced as a source.

Secondly, the British, at the time of the Declaration ("understood, at the time of the Balfour Declaration, to be the whole of historic Palestine, including Transjordan") understood that, not by 1937 which by then they had already turned their backs on the "National Home" concept. You're misreading the quote.

I'm not misreading it. I'm questioning where it comes from. The website you referenced claims it was in the Peel Commission Report. I followed the link to the report and could not find the quote in the report text.

[Lent]

I'm not misreading it. I'm questioning where it comes from. The website you referenced claims it was in the Peel Commission Report. I followed the link to the report and could not find the quote in the report text.

You're questioning the interpretation and its accuracy. I'm saying show me in the Peel Commission where that notion is wrong. That is, show me where the author has misread what the Peel Commission stated was the understanding when Balfour was initially set forth. The onus is on you to show contrawise. Maybe you can point out to me from the Peel Commission where this was not stated.

[traditionalist]

Here again you wish to constrain by your language. The Jews were "entitled" to settle anywhere under the rubrick of the "National Home for the Jews" - both east and west of the Jordan. In fact, the Declaration was explicitly sanctioned and accepted at the San Remo Conference by the League of Nations in 1920.

Where does the Balfour declaration or the San Remo Conference give the Jews the right to settle anywhere in Palestine, East and West of the Jordan? All it says is that there should be a National Home IN Palestine. Nowhere does it specify all of Palestine as that home.

Finally, your statement about the "Peel Commission" is puzzling as:(1) I asked you to show me where this quote has been misread or misused from the Peel Commission;(2) You have misread the quote.

Perhaps I have not made myself clear. YOU provided the quote. I followed the links you provided to the text of the Peel Commission Report and could not find the quote in that text. All I want to know where that quote comes from, since I could not find it in the Peel Commission Report text that was linked in the source you referenced.

[traditionalist]

You're questioning the interpretation and its accuracy. I'm saying show me in the Peel Commission where that notion is wrong. That is, show me where the author has misread what the Peel Commission stated was the understanding when Balfour was initially set forth.

I'm not questioning anyone's interpretation or anyone's notions. I'm questioning where the author got the sentence he claims is a direct quote from the Peel Commission Report. I'm saying its not in the text. I read the whole text. It's not there.

Read the text for yourself.

The onus is on you to show contrawise. Maybe you can point out to me from the Peel Commission where this was not stated.

Say what? I'm supposed to show you were something is not stated? I guess someone changed the rules of documentation without telling me. I was taught that the onus is on the one who provides a quotation to show exactly where that quotation comes from. You know, with things like footnotes that list page and paragraph numbers.

Anyway, you have a text in front of you. If you can find the quotation, tell me where it is.

[traditionalist]

But for the record, I never said that they promised the Jews a state on the entire area west of the Jordan river.

True, but you did say something very close to it:

The Palestine referred to here included all of Jordan as well as Israel and the "occupied territories". So when you say it was supposed to be "IN Palestine" not "All of" that is exactly what occured. West of the Jordan was to be the Jewish homeland, east of the Jordan an Arab state

So I will rephrase my question. Where did the British promise that the whole area west of the Jordan was supposed to be the Jewish homeland?

[monkeyshine]

Maybe I can enlighten this, because I am puzzled by it too.

Lent's link does not say that the quote is in the Peel Commission Report, it says "According to the Peel Commission".

Is it possible that such a quote was said or referenced by member(s) of the Commission during testimony or inquiry, without putting the quote to words in the report?

[traditionalist]

Is it possible that such a quote was said or referenced by member(s) of the Commission during testimony or inquiry, without putting the quote to words in the report?

Perhaps. But until the authenticity of the quotation is established, it cannot be used to support a thesis. That is standard scholarly practice.

[monkeyshine]

What do you make of this: 1, The British promised that the Jews could set up a national home in Palestine, AND 2, the British told the Arabs that they did not promise Arab independence in Palestine.

[monkeyshine]

Lent's source in turn sources the Israeli Ministry of the Interior. Maybe there is an answer there.

[traditionalist]

What do you make of this: 1, The British promised that the Jews could set up a national home in Palestine, AND 2, the British told the Arabs that they did not promise Arab independence in Palestine.

Agreed. I would also add:

1.The Arabs never recognized that all the land West of the Jordan was to be Jewish.
2.The Arabs only agreed that somewhere on that land there was to be a Jewish homeland. No specific borders were ever agreed to.

Points 1 and 2 are contrary to what the article posted above claims.

[TLBSHOW]

A good find.

BUMP TO THE TRUTH ABOUT ARABS

[monkeyshine]

The Arabs only agreed that somewhere on that land there was to be a Jewish homeland. No specific borders were ever agreed to.

Well, we know now that even that acceptance was not genuine. Or at least, that one generation did not honor the agreements of the previous, since by 1947 the Arabs had decided that even the repartition of the partition was unacceptable to them. Their current claim that the land was stolen, and their expressed desires to drive the Jews into the sea prove that they not only do not accept the validity of some semblance of a Jewish state on the land, but also that they are willing to lie about the evolution of not only Israel but of their own claims to the land.

[traditionalist]

I agree, the Arab's refusal to even negotiate a partition in 1947 was wrong. However, Jordan and Egypt have come to recognize Israel's right to exist since then, so I would not lose all hope.

[Lent]

I'm not questioning anyone's interpretation or anyone's notions. I'm questioning where the author got the sentence he claims is a direct quote from the Peel Commission Report. I'm saying its not in the text. I read the whole text. It's not there.

The quote is not from the summary which you have sourced in front of you. Get your facts straight. The actual Report was 414 pages. I say again. Get the Report and talk to me not the summary or McDonald's version.

[Lent]

Where does the Balfour declaration or the San Remo Conference give the Jews the right to settle anywhere in Palestine, East and West of the Jordan? All it says is that there should be a National Home IN Palestine. Nowhere does it specify all of Palestine as that home.

Is it the logic that escapes you? The National Home was explicitly the British Mandate. The British Mandate extended east and west of the Jordan. Where does it say in the Balfour that the Jews would not be able to immigrate east of the Jordan for example? Please find where it states that.

[mgstarr]

I seriously doubt whether traditionalist is really interested in a serious discussion of the matter, but prefers rather to pick things apart or question sources, etc. There's no doubt that in the intent of the Balfour Declaration, Peel Commission, and other Mandate-related commissions that there was general agreement on the creation of a Jewish homeland west of the Jordan river. To put them elsewhere is ridiculous as there's no historic connection to other areas.

The reason Sadat and King Hussein made peace with Israel is that they were rational enough to realize they needed to co-exist with them. They were the last of the rational Arab leaders (Abdullah hopefully excluded). The inmates took over the asylum a while ago.

[Lent]

I seriously doubt whether traditionalist is really interested in a serious discussion of the matter, but prefers rather to pick things apart or question sources, etc. There's no doubt that in the intent of the Balfour Declaration, Peel Commission, and other Mandate-related commissions that there was general agreement on the creation of a Jewish homeland west of the Jordan river. To put them elsewhere is ridiculous as there's no historic connection to other areas.

Yes. Of course initially and up until the 1922 partition into Transjordan, there was no impediment to Jewish settlement east of the Jordan. Concurrent with the 1922 partition, Article 25 of the Mandate only postponed the right of further Jewish settlement in this area and did not permanently remove that right.

One should note that at least three Israeli Tribes - Reuben, Gad and Manassseh were given large areas east of the Jordan. As well, both the Davidic and Solomonic kingdoms extended well beyond present Israel into present day Jordan. Hence there is an historical connection in that sense.

[BJClinton]

According to the Peel Commission, appointed by the British Government to investigate the cause of the 1936 Arab riots, "the field in which the Jewish National Home was to be established was understood, at the time of the Balfour Declaration, to be the whole of historic Palestine, including Transjordan."

Not from what I read. Bear in mind, that's a very pro-Israel web site.

The proposal to partition Palestine divided the region into three areas. The coastal plains and the Galilee were to be apportioned for the Jews. The Arabs, in turn, would rule the West Bank, Gaza, and the Negev. Jerusalem, along with a corridor connecting it to the sea, would remain under the authority of the British Mandate.

[monkeyshine]

I think you are reading the quote wrong. The Peel Commission did propose to partition the land as you described, but it apparantly also agreed that at the time of the Balfour Declaration (issued decades earlier) all of Palestine, including Transjordan (now called Jordan) was to become a Jewish National Home.