The Middle East part 2

[killagee 0]

Hey all. I copied this from another forum (not my post) and thought some of you might find it interesting...

Maybe this is not the place for this though.

Personally think we should live in the present, work for the future and forget the past (whilst learning from it).

'Awkward' truths about Palestine

By Muhammad Ali Siddiqi

THERE are two very awkward facts about the Israeli-Palestinian phenomenon

— awkward for those who today adopt, or pretend to adopt, a high moral ground on the issue.

The first awkwardness is the historical truth that it was only during Muslim rule that Palestine enjoyed uninterrupted peace and harmony among Muslims, Christians and Jews.

Religious conflict began the moment Europeans set their feet on the holy land. No history book says anything to the contrary.

Until the first Crusade came to Palestine, there is no record of any conflict between Muslims, Christians and Jews in the holy land. Slaughters began the day Muslim rule ended.

* The first taste of European rule came during the closing stages of the 11th century, for when the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem (1099), they massacred not only Muslims but all Jews.

* Eighty-eight years later Saladin took Jerusalem (1187). His humanism, universally recognised, need not be retold. He brought the Jews back to the holy city. They lived in peace, enjoyed access to Jewish holy places, and had full freedom to practise their religion. This fact is admitted by all western scholars — but not by Israel's first line of defence, the western media.

* Turkish rule did not begin with the Ottoman conquest (1516). The pre-Ottoman era, too, was Turkish. Saladin's soldiery was 100 per cent Turkish, and the Ayubites, his successors, relied on Turkish soldiers. Baybers, who defeated the Mongols at Ainul Jalut (1260), was a Kipchaq Turk from Ukraine, and it was he who finally wound up the remnants of the Crusader states. There is no evidence that Jews or Christians were harmed in any way under his rule, or there was any conflict between the Jews, Muslims and Christians of Palestine.

* Under Ottoman rule, which ended in 1917 when Gen Edmund Allenby took Jerusalem, all the three Palestinian communities had lived in peace. The moment European rule began, religious conflict, marked this time by the eviction of local Arabs (Muslim and Christian), began in earnest with the full might of the British empire at the disposal of the Zionist settlers. There is no historical evidence that during the 11 centuries of Muslim rule, the Jewish community was ever persecuted, evicted from its ancestral homes and farms and forced to leave Palestine.

Incidentally, Jewish settlements had begun even before the British conquest, because the Ottoman empire and Germany enjoyed friendly relations and the sultan agreed to the settlement of German Jews on a modest scale in Palestine. However, because of corruption and misrule towards the fag end of the Ottoman empire, more Jewish families settled than were authorised by Constantinople. Thus, the first riot between Palestinians and European settlers took place in the village of Petach-Teva in 1886, when Palestine was still under Ottoman rule. What caused the riot was the arrival of Europeans in the holy land.

* The Balfour declaration, paved the way for the second arrival of Europeans into the holy land. Since then, Palestine has not had a moment of peace and has been suffering nothing but mass evictions, religious persecution, slaughters and a Nazi-style attempt to achieve a demographic change by the deployment of the most despicable means — permanent occupation of Arab lands, diversion of water resources from Arab orchards and villages to Jewish kibbutzim, felling olive and citrus trees to rob the Palestinians of their sources of livelihood, destruction of Arab farms by acquiring land for Jewish settlements and buildings highways and roads that ploughed through Arab villages and farms.

The second "awkwardness" concerns not just the Jews in Palestine but the Jewish community worldwide. Throughout Muslim lands, the Jews lived in peace and freedom in sharp contrast to the Christian world's unabashed persecution of the Jewish minority for 2,000 years.

* In fact, even the most biased of western writers have not come up with allegations of Muslim persecution of Jews during the Umayyad, Abbasid, Fatimid, Seljuk or Ottoman rule. (The expulsion of Jews from the Arabian peninsula in the seventh century was in battle conditions during Islam's early wars, and concerned less than one per cent of the world's Jewish community, for the majority of Jews were then in Europe, and what today are the states of Iran, Iraq, Yemen and Morocco.)

* The most brilliant period of Muslim-Jewish coexistence was Arab Spain, which, as history records, turned out to be the most fertile soil for the cultural flowering of the Jewish genius, which produced outstanding philosophers, grammarians, mathematicians, biblical scholars and poets. It is not just that the greatest of Jewish thinkers, Maimonides, who was born in Spain, was a doctor at Saladin's court; Jews were co-sharers of the peace, prosperity and cultural and scientific brilliance that Muslim Spain was.

When the end came and Frederick completed the 'Reconquista', Jews were slaughtered as much as Muslims. Thousands of those who had converted to Christianity were burnt at the stakes for secretly observing Judaic rituals, and a mass burning of Jewish books took place (circa 1498). As the Jews fled, they found refuge in Islamic lands, for it was the Ottoman empire which offered asylum to the Jews fleeing persecution in Christian Spain. Israel and Turkey officially observed the 500th anniversary of this event when Israeli President Ezer Weizmann went to Turkey to celebrate the occasion.

* As against this, there was nothing but misery, persecution and ghettoes for the Jews of Europe. Long before Hitler, King Edward I of England (ruled 1272-1307) asked the Jews to wear the Star of David on their dress, and throughout the Crusades, which raged for two centuries, it was accepted by rulers and people of Europe alike that Crusaders would rob and plunder Jewish homes and shops for providing for their journey to the holy land. The fate of the Jews in Germany and eastern Europe in mediaeval times is a story unto itself. The Zionist movement basically emerged as a reaction to the persecution of Jews in Russia and eastern Europe.

* The point to note is that this Jew-baiting was not something specific to the mediaeval times — as western apologists would have us believe; this persecution continued well into the 20th century, for it was again in the thirties and forties in modern and "civilised" Europe that six million Jews were put to death in gas chambers and their bodies burnt in Krupps' ovens. Muslims can raise their heads with pride: they have done no such evil deed.

Deir Yassin, Sabra-Chatilla, Jenin and now whatever is going on in the occupied territories and Lebanon make us ask: is this the way in which the Jews must express their appreciation to the Muslim world for giving them a thousand years of peace and happiness in their lands?

TAILPIECE: Somehow, the European religious psyche is simply incapable of accepting religious plurality for Palestine. This is astonishing. What is going on in Europe today, because of immigrations, is a slow development of religious pluralism. If the Europeans had gone into Palestine in the 11th century and later in the 20th century with such a background perhaps there would have been fewer slaughters.

[Bernadotte 0]

If you read Der Judenstaat, the Jews in Palestine would become the majority through mass immigration of European Jews after Palestine was given to them.

According to Herzl, who was it that was going to give Palestine to the European Jews?

Specifically the backlash to:

- The secret Sykes-Picot Agreement that carved up the region between Britain and France in direct contradiction to what was promised by the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence.

The British, also, came back in the White Paper of June 1922 and said that Palestine wasn't apart of the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence.

In fact, McMahon cafefully tried to exclude it also but Hussein specifically rejected any such restriction.  Of course, it hardly mattered what the British had promised the Arabs 4 years after WWI had ended.  Actually, it was probably only the League of Nations that prevented the entire region from becoming another British/French colonial playground.  

The British, also, went against the mandate and limited the Jewish Agency from buying anymore land.  As well, they limited Jewish immigration in 1931.

Really?  Where does the Mandate state anything about unlimited land sales?  The only mention I could find of land acquisition is in Article 6:

Quote[/b] ]The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

Unfortunately, land acquisition without prejudice to the indigenous population was not that simple.  You see, under the Ottomans rural Palestinian peasants often didn't own the land, but they could own what was on the land like the olive groves and citrus orchards.  So when the Jewish Agency purchased such land they couldn't legally adhere to their policy of preventing Arabs from working there - that is until the trees disappeared.  Apartheid anyone?

It is suppose to be a Jewish state.

Nope.  ...Homeland maybe, but not statehood.  In fact, all immigrants were to receive Palestinian citizenship (Article 7).

...the Agency, legally bought the land. You can't create a Jewish state in the future where Jews don't have nothing.

Please tell me, which international law allows you to create an independent state on the basis of land ownership?  No matter how much of the Mojave desert my friends and I purchase we can't simply declare an independent country in California.  Besides, when Israel declared itself an independent nation on over 50% of Palestine the Jews only owned about 5% of the land.

[t80 0]

Does aliens sound like pigs?

[martinovic 0]

Does aliens sound like pigs?

It depends on what kind of cheese you use.

I'm a bit skeptical about the Ottoman Empire's benevolence. Ask the people in the balkans.

The entire Ottoman empire revolved around paying it's armies with plundered loot, until they over expanded. The people they tried to conquer and enslave sure have a different opinion about the Ottoman Empire.

[mp_phonix 0]

I am lost . .

[Ares1978 0]

No matter how much of the Mojave desert my friends and I purchase we can't simply declare an independent country in California.

Sure you can. But you might want to invest in an army if you want to keep it and you might have some problems getting it recognized as a country internationally. Simply put, you can declare anything you want, but you still need others to recognize it.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

AFAIK you also need to have a constitution, a unique flag, a national anthem, and some other stuff, before you're even eligible to be recognized internationally. But of course, not every country needs its own army - look at Lichtenstein, the Vatican State, Andorra, or even Luxemburg...

[Bernadotte 0]

No matter how much of the Mojave desert my friends and I purchase we can't simply declare an independent country in California.

Sure you can. But you might want to invest in an army if you want to keep it and you might have some problems getting it recognized as a country internationally. Simply put, you can declare anything you want, but you still need others to recognize it.

You hear that, billybob2002?  With enough guns and international recognition, the Jews didn't actually have to buy ANY of the land to found their own country out of half of Palestine.

By the way, Ares1978, do those same rules apply to the Palestinians?  Can they also declare their own country on land that is now Israel if they gather enough military support and if "others recognize it" ? No wonder Israelis are so worried about Iranian nukes. They could end up losing Israel in nearly the same way it was founded.

[Garcia 0]

No matter how much of the Mojave desert my friends and I purchase we can't simply declare an independent country in California.

Sure you can. But you might want to invest in an army if you want to keep it and you might have some problems getting it recognized as a country internationally. Simply put, you can declare anything you want, but you still need others to recognize it.

Arnold got the money

Quote[/b] ]But of course, not every country needs its own army - look at Lichtenstein, the Vatican State, Andorra, or even Luxemburg...

The Vatican State got those fancy swiss guys with some quite old weapons...so they may count as a...rather small army

[Mr_Tea 0]

Everyone should be afraid of Nukes that will most probably come to action. The use of Nukes from someone used against anyone would be the start of something realy big. I doubt that there is a good end in that for anyone.

[Ares1978 0]

By the way, Ares1978, do those same rules apply to the Palestinians?  Can they also declare their own country on land that is now Israel if they gather enough military support and if "others recognize it" ?

Those aren't rules, those are facts. Like I said, you can declare anything you want, but whether or not it has any meaning, depends on how well you can play the game. Sure, the Palestinians can ("can" as in "no laws of nature prevent it") declare their own country on the land that is now Israel and with enough (that's the keyword) political and military support, they could enforce that declaration.

Quote[/b] ]No wonder Israelis are so worried about Iranian nukes. They could end up losing Israel in nearly the same way it was founded.

Now that's a historically inaccurate cheap shot.

Garcia and the rest: I was talking specifically about the Mojave example. The US, like most or all other governments would naturally act to prevent a new country from being created within what it regards its own territory. As for those countries without armies, they are receiving military support from other countries. Italy is responsible for the defence of the Vatican and Switzerland for the defence of Liechtenstein, Spain and France for Andorra and according to the CIA World Factbook, Luxembourg actually has an army.

[Bernadotte 0]

...with enough (that's the keyword) political and military support, they could enforce that declaration.

What do you mean by "enough" since it is such a keyword?

Is it enough to have the political support of a majority of the world's nations; or a majority of the world's population? ...OR is it simply enough just to have a very close friend on the UN Security Council who can veto any declarations raised against your actions??

[Ares1978 0]

What do you mean by "enough" since it is such a keyword?

Is it enough to have the political support of a majority of the world's nations; or a majority of the world's population?  ...OR is it simply enough just to have a very close friend on the UN Security Council who can veto any declarations raised against your actions??

You tell me. Do they, in practice, have a country where Israel is, or don't they? Considering the answer to that question, there shouldn't be any confusion as to whether or not they have enough support.

And enough means enough. Should (as opposed to "is") the political support of a majority of the world's population be enough? That's a different matter and not a very interesting one.

[Bernadotte 0]

Now that's a historically inaccurate cheap shot.

No.  A cheap shot is when you simply claim historical inaccuracy without offering any explanation.

If you think you can, then please explain what was inaccurate in what I said.

...with enough (that's the keyword) political and military support, they could enforce that declaration.

What do you mean by "enough" since it is such a keyword?

...enough means enough.

"But whether or not it has any meaning, depends on how well you can play the game", right?

Should (as opposed to "is") the political support of a majority of the world's population be enough? That's a different matter and not a very interesting one.

Oh, of course not.  It's much more interesting simply to define enough as enough, isn't it?  

[Ares1978 0]

No.  A cheap shot is when you simply claim historical inaccuracy without offering any explanation.

If you think you can, then please explain what was inaccurate in what I said.

Actually, you did already admit in the sentence I quoted that it wasn't accurate ("nearly"), so no explanation is needed, at least not from me. You, however, should elaborate a bit. How exactly could Iranian nukes lead to Israelis ending up losing Israel in nearly the same way it was founded?

Quote[/b] ]

...with enough (that's the keyword) political and military support, they could enforce that declaration.

What do you mean by "enough" since it is such a keyword?

...enough means enough.

"But whether or not it has any meaning, depends on how well you can play the game", right?

Nice try at changing the subject. Just read the text as it was written. "Enough" implies that goals are achieved. "Not enough" means that they are not. "Should be enough" is one thing and a matter of opinion, "is enough" is another and a matter of fact. For example, it is completely uninteresting to discuss what amount of support should be enough, when the support they are receiving isn't.

Quote[/b] ]

Should (as opposed to "is") the political support of a majority of the world's population be enough? That's a different matter and not a very interesting one.

Oh, of course not.  It's much more interesting simply to define enough as enough, isn't it?  

You were the one who had problems with the word, as well as the differences between the concepts of "should" and "is". Why you would even want to ask someone to define the word "enough" is beyond me. Sure, we can reduce the whole discussion to a brainless declaration of opinions regarding how all things in the world should be. I'll go first: I think the majority of the world's population should shut the hell up already. They are very rarely right and their sole function is to silence dissent.

But I'd prefer to discuss how things are.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

As a simple example: Montenegro declared itself an independant country. Serbia approved, Russia approved, and if I'm not mistaken the rest of the world went along with it... result: another country being born, recognized by the international community. As a rule of thumb though I think that when the "big countries", including still the world's nş1 Superpower - the USA, and former superpowers like Russia, and even older powers like Britain, France, and other countries approve the existance of a new country, then the rest of the world will go along with it - why it is so I don't know, probably just because of respect and that because the big ones recognize a country then they maybe would go in there and defend said country against an invader. The case of East Timor was different in the aspect that it was a showcase of what the United Nations could do (U.N.:"Hey! We can create a country!"   ), so Indonesia's interests were kept at bay by a lot of international pressure (though I do bet that the oil findings in timorese territory definitely pushed it up on the interest list of Australia...     )...

But enough of that "enough" offtopic, let's get back to the middle east.  

[Bernadotte 0]

No.  A cheap shot is when you simply claim historical inaccuracy without offering any explanation.

If you think you can, then please explain what was inaccurate in what I said.

Actually, you did already admit in the sentence I quoted that it wasn't accurate ("nearly"), so no explanation is needed, at least not from me.

I suspect English is not your native language.  "Nearly" does not mean the same thing as "historically inaccurate."  In fact, the use of the word "nearly" can often increase the accuracy of a statement.

You, however, should elaborate a bit. How exactly could Iranian nukes lead to Israelis ending up losing Israel in nearly the same way it was founded?

Glad you asked.  (so much more civilised this way)  

The similarity between Israel's birth and possible destruction at the hands of Iran is in the use of force.  Israel was founded through use of force by Jewish terrorists against the British administration.  Israel now fears its own destruction by Iran's own use of force if Iran develops a nuclear capability. I hope that's clear now.

Quote[/b] ]

...with enough (that's the keyword) political and military support, they could enforce that declaration.

What do you mean by "enough" since it is such a keyword?

...enough means enough.

"But whether or not it has any meaning, depends on how well you can play the game", right?

Nice try at changing the subject.

Actually I was trying to conclude the discussion of what I'd thought was something more profound out of you.  After all, you're the one who referred to it as "the keyword" not me.  So yeah, enough means enough.  Awesome.  Thanks for that.  Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........

[Ares1978 0]

I suspect English is not your native language.  "Nearly" does not mean the same thing as "historically inaccurate."  In fact, the use of the word "nearly" can often increase the accuracy of a statement.

One reference to a historical event accompanied by an admission of a factual inaccuracy (that's what "in nearly the same way" is)? Damn right it's a question of historical inaccuracy.

Quote[/b] ]

Glad you asked.  (so much more civilised this way)  

The similarity between Israel's birth and possible destruction at the hands of Iran is in the use of force.  Israel was founded through use of force by Jewish terrorists against the British administration.  Israel now fears its own destruction by Iran's own use of force if Iran develops a nuclear capability.  I hope that's clear now.

Well, to be accurate, that doesn't show any other similarities even though you chose to use basically the same words to describe the actions of both parties. There is no symmetry, so to speak. I can insert a foot into my DVD player through use of force, but my actions, methods or goals are by no means comparable to those of Israel or a hypothetical nuke-wielding Iran. If the use of force is the only thing they have in common, then it's a serious exaggeration to say "in nearly the same way".

Quote[/b] ]Actually I was trying to conclude the discussion of what I'd thought was something more profound out of you.  After all, you're the one who referred to it as "the keyword" not me.  So yeah, enough means enough.  Awesome.  Thanks for that.  Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........

Enough was the keyword because it varies, everybody knows that. Enough can be the political support of a single superpower or the political and military support of a handful of less powerful countries. With enough thrust, even a brick will fly, and by that I mean that with enough support (unknown quantity and quality) even the Palestinians could create a country on Israeli territory.

[billybob2002 0]

According to Herzl, who was it that was going to give Palestine to the European Jews?

Ottoman Empire because Palestine was under their domain while he was alive. As well, they asked the Germans for some reason.

Really?  Where does the Mandate state anything about unlimited land sales?  The only mention I could find of land acquisition is in Article 6

Why didn't you bold....

Quote[/b] ]the Administration of Palestine shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency...close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not acquired for public purposes.â€

There was no restriction of land sales until 1939 when the House of Commons passed the White Paper of 1939. It wasn't the mandate but the White Paper of 1939 that restricted land sells.

Nope.  ...Homeland maybe, but not statehood.  In fact, all immigrants were to receive Palestinian citizenship (Article 7).

It wasn't until the White Paper of 1939 clearly stated that "homeland" didn't mean statehood. Even Winston Churchill, before he turned anti-zionist, thought it went against the Balfour Declaration. Yes, the British really fecked things.

Please tell me, which international law allows you to create an independent state on the basis of land ownership?  No matter how much of the Mojave desert my friends and I purchase we can't simply declare an independent country in California.  Besides, when Israel declared itself an independent nation on over 50% of Palestine the Jews only owned about 5% of the land.

It wasn't until 1939 that the British came out and said that homeland didn't mean statehood. In the original text of the Balfour Declaration, it stated "Palestine should be reconstituted as the National Home of the Jewish people." Additionally, there was no provision in the text for protecting non-Jewish people in Palestine. That text was changed after Edwin Montagu wrote a angry letter attacking the declaration.

Balfour said, in 1918, "(M)y personal hope is that the Jews will make good in Palestine and eventually found a Jewish state." Additionally, he said, "(I)t is up to them now; we have given them their great opportunity."

You hear that, billybob2002?  With enough guns and international recognition, the Jews didn't actually have to buy ANY of the land to found their own country out of half of Palestine.

First, according to the United States Supreme Court, it is illegal under the Constitution for a state or a piece of a state to secede from the Union. Anyway, the Jews owned less then 5% of the land due to the 1939 White Paper. You know it was the United Nations, and not the Jews, that created the Jewish state with the partition.

[Garcia 0]

Well, to be accurate, that doesn't show any other similarities even though you chose to use basically the same words to describe the actions of both parties. There is no symmetry, so to speak. I can insert a foot into my DVD player through use of force, but my actions, methods or goals are by no means comparable to those of Israel or a hypothetical nuke-wielding Iran. If the use of force is the only thing they have in common, then it's a serious exaggeration to say "in nearly the same way".

If 2 countries are founded by the use of force, there are similarities between their founding, because both were founded with the use of force...their methods and goals are similar, since their method is use of force and their goal is founding a new country. So if Israel was founded with use of force, and Iran plans to help someone found a new state where Israel is by use of force, they have the same goal and their method is about the same...therefor they are similar...

[kakagoegie 0]

4 UN observers have been killed in Lebanon --> Developing story

[Ares1978 0]

If 2 countries are founded by the use of force, there are similarities between their founding, because both were founded with the use of force...their methods and goals are similar, since their method is use of force and their goal is founding a new country. So if Israel was founded with use of force, and Iran plans to help someone found a new state where Israel is by use of force, they have the same goal and their method is about the same...therefor they are similar...

Unspecified "use of force" is meaningless and out of context. It needs to be a lot more specific than just "use of force". What country hasn't been founded with the use of force? Are you people trying to tell me that Israel has in fact been founded nearly the same way as every other country on this planet and if Iran gets nukes, the Israelis may lose Israel in nearly the same way as every other country has been founded?  

The only similarity is still just the use of force. Israel, Iran, terrorists, nukes, foot, dvd-player..

[Bernadotte 0]

Unspecified "use of force" is meaningless and out of context. It needs to be a lot more specific than just "use of force".

What country hasn't been founded with the use of force?

The fictional one out in the Mojave Desert that I was discussing in the first place until you pulled my comment entirely out of context.

According to Herzl, who was it that was going to give Palestine to the European Jews?

Ottoman Empire because Palestine was under their domain while he was alive. As well, they asked the Germans for some reason.

Really?  And what was the Ottoman Empire going to get in return?

Really?  Where does the Mandate state anything about unlimited land sales?  The only mention I could find of land acquisition is in Article 6

Why didn't you bold....

Quote[/b] ]the Administration of Palestine shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency...close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not acquired for public purposes.â€

There was no restriction of land sales until 1939 when the House of Commons passed the White Paper of 1939. It wasn't the mandate but the White Paper of 1939 that restricted land sells.

There's still nothing in there about unlimited land sales.  You've even removed the bold part of my quote about land sales ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced.  Perhaps you didn't think this condition was worth quoting, however the Report of the 1937 Peel Commission focused much of chapter IX on it because it was not being carried out.

Nope.  ...Homeland maybe, but not statehood.  In fact, all immigrants were to receive Palestinian citizenship (Article 7).

It wasn't until the White Paper of 1939 clearly stated that "homeland" didn't mean statehood. Even Winston Churchill, before he turned anti-zionist, thought it went against the Balfour Declaration. Yes, the British really fecked things.

Again according to The Peel Commission, "The Jews understood that, if the experiment of establishing a Jewish National Home succeeded and a sufficient number of Jews went to Palestine, the National Home might develop in course of time into a Jewish State."  Arab revolts could hardly have been regarded as an indication of a successful experiment.

It wasn't until 1939 that the British came out and said that homeland didn't mean statehood.

Which doesn't mean that "homeland" could be interpreted as "statehood" before 1939.

In the original text of the Balfour Declaration...

Early drafts could have described shipping penguins to the Canadian arctic too.  It's irrelevant.  Only the final Declaration matters.

You hear that, billybob2002?  With enough guns and international recognition, the Jews didn't actually have to buy ANY of the land to found their own country out of half of Palestine.

First, according to the United States Supreme Court, it is illegal under the Constitution for a state or a piece of a state to secede from the Union.

Do yourself a really big favour and don't go looking for anything too profound in what Ares posted.  You too can declare an independant state in your mother's kitchen is about all he was trying to express.

You know it was the United Nations, and not the Jews, that created the Jewish state with the partition.

You do know that UN General Assembly resolution 181, like all General Assembly resolutions was merely a non-binding recommendation.  It hardly "created the Jewish State."  In fact, Britain was still in charge for another 6 months and refused to implement it.

[billybob2002 0]

Really?  And what was the Ottoman Empire going to get in return?

The Jewish state would be a neutral state and work with the Ottoman Empire.

There's still nothing in there about unlimited land sales.  You've even removed the bold part of my quote about land sales ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced.  Perhaps you didn't think this condition was worth quoting, however the Report of the 1937 Peel Commission focused much of chapter IX on it because it was not being carried out.

.......

Again according to The Peel Commission, "The Jews understood that, if the experiment of establishing a Jewish National Home succeeded and a sufficient number of Jews went to Palestine, the National Home might develop in course of time into a Jewish State."  Arab revolts could hardly have been regarded as an indication of a successful experiment.

-According to the White Paper of 1939, the prohibition and regulation of transfers of land dealt with the growth of the Arab population (I wonder how) and standard of living for them. How can you establish a Jewish homeland when the Jews are heavily regulated and barred from buying land which they, the Jews, can do according to the Mandate? As well, limit them from immigrating to Palestine? Clear violations of the Mandate.

-According to the conclusion of the 1937 Peel Commission, Palestine should be partition into a Jewish State and Arabic State:

Quote[/b] ](ii) Partition enables the Jews in the fullest sense to call their National Home their own; for it converts it into a Jewish State. Its citizens will be able to admit as many Jews into it as they themselves believe can be absorbed. They will attain the primary objective of Zionism--a Jewish nation, planted in Palestine, giving its nationals the same status in the world as other nations give theirs. They will cease at last to live a minority life.

The Commission still let open the chance of statehood because the homeland could develop into a state. The commission even admitted that.

Early drafts could have described shipping penguins to the Canadian arctic too.  It's irrelevant.  Only the final Declaration matters.

It wasn't a draft because it was to be sent out in that form until Edwin Montagu stepped in and attacked it. One of the main reasons he attacked it because he thought the declaration would be used as a pretext to expel Jews from European countries. Even Balfour believed there is going to be a Jewish state.

It is called original intent for the Declaration and not a draft.

You do know that UN General Assembly resolution 181, like all General Assembly resolutions was merely a non-binding recommendation.  It hardly "created the Jewish State."  In fact, Britain was still in charge for another 6 months and refused to implement it.

It created the Jewish state in that the Jews followed the 1947 partition plan when they declared independence once the Mandate almost ended in 1948. However, they couldn't follow the partition due to war. The Jews even gained more land when they signed the 1949 Armistice Agreements. Therefore, the Jewish state was created, the land mass, by the United Nations and the Arab nations allowed Israel to expand because the Arabs didn't want a Jewish state.

Do yourself a really big favour and don't go looking for anything too profound in what Ares posted.  You too can declare an independant state in your mother's kitchen is about all he was trying to express.

I know but he doesn't know you can't under US law.....  

[Ares1978 0]

The fictional one out in the Mojave Desert that I was discussing in the first place until you pulled my comment entirely out of context.

It was already out of context as a hypothetical example which you were using to make a point. I chose to comment on it, to show you that through that example, that point couldn't be made.