Posted on 06/17/2002 11:37:53 AM PDT by gordgekko
Without regards to its limitation. That's what you don't want to admit. My point is further reinforced by the fact that a few years later s. 25 of the Mandate specifically suspended the Jewish right to immigrate in what would be Transjordan. The latter would not have occurred had not the Hashemite issue arisen. In other words the Jews would have continued to immigrate to both sides of the Jordan as of right and therefore the opportunity for Statehood over the entire area was a realistic actuality provided for by the British. You refuse to acknowledge the logic and factual basis for that because you are hung up on seeking explicit indications where the Cabinet was more subtle than you give them credit for.
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 had a right to immigrate in all areas qua a "National Home". If it was a right then what followed logically and factually from same was eventual statehood. If I plant a carrot seed I'm going to get a carrot, not a peach tree.
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.
They had a guaranteed right as of law. If they didn't a few years later that right would not have been expressly suspended under s. 25 of the Mandate. If there was no right to suspend than s. 25 would not have occurred. Of course every right is subject to some constraints. Neverthless, it was a right and the obligation to facilitate that right fell upon the British which they failed in securing.
Did or did not the Peel commission recommend a partition of Palestine? I asserted nothing more than that it did.
You're not following the logic of your own posts. You stated that the Peel Commission was a reflection of the intention of Balfour. I stated it was categorically not. In fact it was a disavowal of same.
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.
No. Most thought it was fine. Many would have liked an immediate and open notion of statehood but the language was left implicit and open to making the entire area a Jewish state.
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.
Yes it is the issue. Because part of George's anger at later developments was aimed directly at what I stated the British began to do. That is, disavow Balfour. Why? Because the implication and extent of its implicit rights went well beyond what the British were prepared to countenance in the 30's and 40's particularly since their need for Arab oil and the favour of the Arabs for the war effort.
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?
It is not in violation of it according to Resolution 242 which does not require Israel to withdraw to the "green line" and certainly cannot mandate withdrawal until the Arab states have recognized Israel 's right to exist. Egypt and Jordan have made their peace but the biggest beligerants - Iraq and Syria still refuse to do so. That recognition is a condition precedent to signing on the dotted line and it has been the U.S.'s position in negotiations to press this track.
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.
Where is their appeal to anything but the requirements of 242 and 338? Barak negotiated a generous process of withdrawal which was spat upon by Arafat. Israel doesn't need to appeal to anything but the fact of Pan Arab aggression and intransigence as examples that that side is not negotiating in good faith.
When the word "Palestine" was used in 1918 do you agree it referred to the entirety of the Mandated area East and West of the Jordan? Yes or no.
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.