Posted on 06/17/2002 11:37:53 AM PDT by gordgekko
From your statement it appeared you thought someone said that the Peel Commission said that the Jewish National Home would include all of Palestine/Transjordan. As you pointed out, that is not true. But that is also not the point. The Peel Commission attempts to rectify the situation (violence) caused in part by the understanding that the Balfour declaration granted the Jewish National Home in all of Palestine (which at the time included the not yet created nation of Transjordan), which is apparantly why they needed to restate this understanding in the report.
Lent says that the Peel Commission report is 414 pages long. If he is correct, then the only copies I have seen are summaries of the report, which do not include the quote.
No, the entire British mandate was never meant to be the Jewish homeland. The Jewish home was supposed to be IN the British mandate. The authors of the Balfour declaration were intentionally vague as to how much or what part of the mandate was supposed to be Jewish because they did not want to commit to giving all of it to the Jews, to the great dissapointment of the Zionists of the time. This is a documented historical fact. A Peace to End All Peace presents a thorough and well-documented discussion of the subject. I'll give you a more complete reference when I get home.
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.
It doesn't. So what's your point?
Now I have a question for you. Why do the mandates and declarations of a globalist bureacracy and an empire that no longer exist have any bearing on the matter of Palestine today?
Also, if you place so much authority on the UN's forerunner, the League of Nations, how can you justify Israel's flagrant flaunting and violations of UN resolutions?
Not that I give a fig about the UN or the League of Nations. I don't think any country should be bound by the precepts or resolutions of either, but you seem to be inconsistent in claiming the resolutions of the latter but not the former are binding. Perhaps you can explain why only one matters to you.
Okay, I see that the text that is linked is only a summary, not the full report, which is probably not available online.
Frankly, I do not have time to try to find the document in some library and wade through 414 pages to see if the quotation is in it. But, according to standard scholarly practice, it is the responsibility of the one who provides a quotation to reference exactly where it comes from with page and paragraph numbers. Jsource failed to do so, and hence until an exact reference is given, the quotation cannot be used to support an argument. Forgive me if I do not take your or Jsource's word for it that the quotation is authentic.
Yes, they were intentionally vague but the vagueness was not because they wanted to initially constrict access to all of the Mandate area. That constriction only came later. I'm well aware of the post-Balfour discussions among the British and particularly those British politicians who were not members of the original war cabinet who approved Balfour.
Now I have a question for you. Why do the mandates and declarations of a globalist bureacracy and an empire that no longer exist have any bearing on the matter of Palestine today?
They have a bearing because Arafat himself has suggested the negotiations should go back to Resolution 181. The history of that therefore includes a consideration of Balfour by virtue of its initial adoption by the League of Nations and its later incorporation by reference under Article 80 of the United Nations which expressly stated that all rights pursuant to these Mandates continue as established and existing rights.
Also, if you place so much authority on the UN's forerunner, the League of Nations, how can you justify Israel's flagrant flaunting and violations of UN resolutions?
Where have you got me stating this? I simply stated facts to you. Since it is the Arabs who run to the U.N. for every wimpering reason against Israel the issue is being discussed in that context not my presumed respect and love for the U.N. And since the U.N. is dominated by a bunch of Third World countries and the Islamic bloc including some oil rich Arab states I have no consideration whatsoever for the numerous Chapter Six Resolutions condemning Israel. They are meaningless.
Sorry, he did state where it came from. The page numbers may be non-standard. Hence, if you want further clarification you should email JSOURCE.
Right, they were vauge because they did not want to commit from the outset to giving the Jews the entire area. They did not want to constrict access to any parts of the mandate initially, but they wanted the flexibility to do that in the future, which is exactly what the Peel Commission recommended.
Your statement above appears to be a grudging admission that the Balfour Declaration did not promise the Jews the entire area of the mandate as a homeland. Am I wrong?
Regarding the UN and the League of Nations, you appear to be missing my point. There are are one or two, I don't remember the exact number now, UN resolutions that specifically call for Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza. Israel is violating them. If Israel does not honor UN resolutions, on what basis can it appeal to League of Nations resolutions?
Sorry, but since you are using it as a reference, the onus is on you to provide documentation. Official reports typically have sections and chapters, so non-standard page numbers should not be a problem.
He sourced it. You've objected to the quote but can't rebut it except to give give some pro forma objection. That's not good enough. You didn't even recognize the summary source you were relying on (having checked that source so you stated) and now you state you're not believing it because you don't like how he did it? Maybe "lazy" describes your position. You'll check the presumed source on the Internet but anything further you fall back on some pernicious explanation. LOL!
They didn't constrict because they stated "National Home for the Jews" and it was in all of "Palestine". Not a part. Presumably if the Jews were to have become a majority in all of Palestine they would have had the basis to claim a Jewish Commenwealth. Just because the events didn't work out that way does not mean the process would not have gone in that direction. They were not constricted therefore the whole was available to Jewish settlement. That was what you queried about and that was what I quoted the Balfour for.
Moreover, you are misusing the Peel Commission. The Peel Commission came after the Hope Simpson Report and the White Paper (1930-31). Both reports began to further restrict Jewish land purchases and immigration under the false notion of Arab displacement. Those committees were constituted again because of Arab violence and the nationalist and terroristic activities of the Grand Mufti Hajj Husseini - later wanted for War Crimes by Yugoslavia. The British turned their backs on Balfour and the Peel was another process in that chain of invents where the British finally completely washed their hands of the Mandate. Your use of the Peel Commission is ahistorical and not legitimate. You can't manipulate facts to fit your perspective on this issue.
Your statement above appears to be a grudging admission that the Balfour Declaration did not promise the Jews the entire area of the mandate as a homeland. Am I wrong?
Again, see above. What the British initially intended by the War Cabinet's approval of Balfour was far reaching. The notion of "National Home" for example was arrived at in consultation with Zionist leaders. The notion itself of "National Home" had no historical precedent but was brought over from the 1897 Zionist Conference which used the phrase instead of "Jewish State" so as not to offend the Turks who ruled over this area at the time. Hence, it implicitly connoted "Jewish State" and Lloyd George, the PM at the time, in his retrospective concerning Balfour stated that those in the cabinet, and particularly him, countenanced an eventual Jewish Commenwealth when they had the numbers. He specifically thought the British policy of restricting immigration and land purchases was completely contrary to the intent of those who approved the Declaration.
Regarding the UN and the League of Nations, you appear to be missing my point. There are are one or two, I don't remember the exact number now, UN resolutions that specifically call for Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza. Israel is violating them. If Israel does not honor UN resolutions, on what basis can it appeal to League of Nations resolutions?
You appear to be muddling some issues here. I don't know how this argument has gotten to the place of your impugning Israel's history with the U.N. and their invoking the UN. If the issue is one of land that one is settled by Israel winning wars of aggression by the Arab States. The fact that those self-same states then invoke the UN to justify their attempt to destroy Israel (by pressuring to give land back) is worthy to be attacked as illegitimate regardless of the other issues with respect to the U.N.
I know them quite well. If you're giving an informal discussion about an issue it is not necessary to cite completely but only necessary that you attribute the source. It is laziness to impugn that after having taken the writer to task and actually checking the wrong source yourself. You can't have it both ways. You committed to impugning on the one hand by checking the presumed source and now that you have egg on your face you want to attack his citation generally. Admit it. You're too lazy to make further inquiry so this is easier for you to do. You had claimed that you read the Peel Commission. All 414 pages, maps, geographical data, population data, etc? Maybe you can find that copy of the Peel Commission you claimed to have read and find it there. No?
At any rate, it does not negate the responsibility of the author to indicate where in the report the quotation is form, especially if the report is 414 pages. If I am lazy for demanding adherance to the standards of documentation and citation, then so be it.
Wait a minute. Did you not just admit that the British were intentionally vague?
The text of Balfour says simply that there is to be a Jewish homeland IN Palestine. It says nothing of it being composed of ALL of Palestine. If you assert the contrary, please show me where in Balfour it says the Jews are to have all of Palestine.
Presumably if the Jews were to have become a majority in all of Palestine they would have had the basis to claim a Jewish Commenwealth. Just because the events didn't work out that way does not mean the process would not have gone in that direction.
Nothing in Balfour or in the mandate says anything about the Jews being entitled to having ALL of Palestine. You are right that it left open the possibility that they would get all of it, but nowhere does it guarantee that they are supposed to get all of it, even if they become a majority everywhere.
They were not constricted therefore the whole was available to Jewish settlement. That was what you queried about and that was what I quoted the Balfour for.
The fact that Balfour does not restrict Jewish settlement to certain parts of Palestine does not imply that it guarantees Jews the right to settle anywhere within the territory.
If you assert that Balfour does give this right, please show me where.
Moreover, you are misusing the Peel Commission. The Peel Commission came after the Hope Simpson Report and the White Paper (1930-31). Both reports began to further restrict Jewish land purchases and immigration under the false notion of Arab displacement. Those committees were constituted again because of Arab violence and the nationalist and terroristic activities of the Grand Mufti Hajj Husseini - later wanted for War Crimes by Yugoslavia. The British turned their backs on Balfour and the Peel was another process in that chain of invents where the British finally completely washed their hands of the Mandate. Your use of the Peel Commission is ahistorical and not legitimate. You can't manipulate facts to fit your perspective on this issue.
Did or did not the Peel commission recommend a partition of Palestine? I asserted nothing more than that it did.
Again, see above. What the British initially intended by the War Cabinet's approval of Balfour was far reaching.
It was vague, and intentionally so. All it stated was that the Jews were to have a home IN Palestine. That's it. Not all of Palestine, not part of it, just in Palestine. How much of Palestine was intentionally left open.
The notion of "National Home" for example was arrived at in consultation with Zionist leaders.
Yes, and the Zionist leaders did not like the language that was finally used in the declaration, particularly the fact that it did not specify that Jews were entitled to the entire area of Palestine.
The notion itself of "National Home" had no historical precedent but was brought over from the 1897 Zionist Conference which used the phrase instead of "Jewish State" so as not to offend the Turks who ruled over this area at the time. Hence, it implicitly connoted "Jewish State" and Lloyd George, the PM at the time, in his retrospective concerning Balfour stated that those in the cabinet, and particularly him, countenanced an eventual Jewish Commenwealth when they had the numbers.
That Lloyd George intended for Balfour to eventually lead to a Jewish state is an uncontroversial historical fact. That's not the issue here. What's at issue are the borders of that state, and all I am asserting is that Balfour did not have anything to say about the matter.
He specifically thought the British policy of restricting immigration and land purchases was completely contrary to the intent of those who approved the Declaration.
That does not prove that Lloyd George intended Balfour to grant all of Palestine to the Jews.
You appear to be muddling some issues here. I don't know how this argument has gotten to the place of your impugning Israel's history with the U.N. and their invoking the UN.
I did not impugne anything. All I did was note that Israel is in violation of a UN Security Council resolution calling upon it to withdraw from the territories. Is it not inconsistent to flaunt the UN on one hand and then appeal to it on the other?
If the issue is one of land that one is settled by Israel winning wars of aggression by the Arab States. The fact that those self-same states then invoke the UN to justify their attempt to destroy Israel (by pressuring to give land back) is worthy to be attacked as illegitimate regardless of the other issues with respect to the U.N.
I'm not arguing wehther or not Arab demands that Israel to withdraw from the territories are legitimate. All I am saying there are several UN resolutions that make the same demand as the Arabs. Israel cannot on one hand appeal to the UN and at the same time flagrantly flaunt its resolutions. Your red-herring filled dodge is indeed worthy of Clinton.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.