• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Egyptian FM: Arab League will establish Palestinian State'

24107

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
2,809
Reaction score
824
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Egyptian Foreign Minister Abu Al-Rit said that if there is no progress in proximity talks between Israel and the Palestinians, the Arab League's security council may establish a Palestinian State, Israel Radio reported on Friday.

Al-Rit reportedly said at the conference of Palestinian donor states in Paris that the Arab League will wait until September, and if the situation does not change, the League will declare a Palestinian State in 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital.

'Egyptian FM: Arab League will establish Palestinian State'
 

24107

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
2,809
Reaction score
824
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm assuming he meant East Jerusalem as the capital. I't could be a good thing for the arab league to get involved, maybe it will help to nudge things forward? There are obvious signs that the Palestinians are ready for a two-state solution.
 
Last edited:

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,235
Reaction score
14,250
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
So the Arab league is going to force Israel to do something? The Arab League is biased against Israel. How are the Palestinians showing they are ready for a two state solution when their political parties are killing each other and one of them is a terrorist organization?
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,860
Reaction score
10,292
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The Arab League won't be able to actually establish a Palestinian state in territory it doesn't control. If the Arab League's language calls for the creation of a Palestinian state in the areas described, such a move could be constructive if the Arab League would immediately be willing to enter into direct negotiations with Israel to transform its negotiating position into an agreement. A "take it or leave it" proposition along those lines would not bring agreement. All parties would need to compromise if an agreement were to be achieved. If, however, the Arab League seeks to push the Palestinians toward making unilateral claims, the move could backfire badly. It could encourage Israel to adopt unilateral moves of its own and Israel has the power necessary to enforce its claims.
 
Last edited:

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
It's going to be beyond funny if/when they declare a state in September before the Egypt-sponsored 'Unity talks' produce a single palestinian govt. And it's the Egyptian FM quoted above.

See my 'Palestinian elections' string below which didn't draw any response as these daily provocative ones do. (aside from an appreciated 'thanks'). On that note, why doesn't the Arab League either settle the Hamas/Fatah rift or call for elections as I have?

This is the same Racist Arab League that has backed the Sudanese Genocide and it's govt and leader NIF/Bashir.

2004: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3545818.stm

2008: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-07-19-Sudan_N.htm

2009: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123836990493167619.html
 
Last edited:

washunut

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
11,931
Reaction score
3,473
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
This has to be a joke. How many members have been at war with Israel since 1948 and still are officially in a state of war. Who in their right mind thinks Israel will just so OK, the arab league has spoken so now there is a Palestianian state.

I guess a real question would be if they proclaim this " state" and it does not magically appear, which it won't are they proposing another war in the ME?
 

Degreez

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
3,216
Reaction score
1,021
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
This has to be a joke. How many members have been at war with Israel since 1948 and still are officially in a state of war. Who in their right mind thinks Israel will just so OK, the arab league has spoken so now there is a Palestianian state.
That's what happened to the Palestinians in 1947 They were forced to accept the terms of Partition despite not being consented about it (a contradiction of self-determination).
I guess a real question would be if they proclaim this " state" and it does not magically appear, which it won't are they proposing another war in the ME?
[/quote]
Appear? The Palestinian territories already exist. It's only a matter of ending the occupation.
 

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,167
Reaction score
21,572
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
i figured out a solution, Egypt can give the Sinai Peninsula to the Palestinians, and everyone's happy :)
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,860
Reaction score
10,292
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
That's what happened to the Palestinians in 1947 They were forced to accept the terms of Partition despite not being consented about it (a contradiction of self-determination).

That is inaccurate. The UN's Special Rapporteur Thor Thors of Iceland informed the General Assembly, "The Arab Higher Committee was approached by UNSCOP on more than one occasion and was invited to assist in the work of UNSCOP, but it refused." Refusal to particpate is not an absence of its being consulted. It was a willful decision by the Arab Higher Committee to try to obstruct UNSCOP's work.
 
Last edited:

washunut

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
11,931
Reaction score
3,473
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
That's what happened to the Palestinians in 1947 They were forced to accept the terms of Partition despite not being consented about it (a contradiction of self-determination).
Appear? The Palestinian territories already exist. It's only a matter of ending the occupation.[/QUOTE]

Just refresh my memory. Were the Palestine an independent state between 1948 and 1967? If not who was occupying it during this period.

Maybe the right answer for israel would be to give Gaza back to Egypt and let them do what they want with it.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,173
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
That's what happened to the Palestinians in 1947 They were forced to accept the terms of Partition despite not being consented about it (a contradiction of self-determination).

I'm sorry, maybe I'm going a bit crazy here...but I'm pretty sure that land in 1947 wasn't the Palestinian's, it was the British's. And I'm pretty sure Britian is the one that chose to allow for the partition and gave a chance for both Israel AND Palestine to have its own defined land under its own controlling power.

And I'm pretty sure only one of those groups took them up on it, and the other went to war.
 

Slainte

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
1,061
Reaction score
315
Location
Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'm sorry, maybe I'm going a bit crazy here...but I'm pretty sure that land in 1947 wasn't the Palestinian's, it was the British's. And I'm pretty sure Britian is the one that chose to allow for the partition and gave a chance for both Israel AND Palestine to have its own defined land under its own controlling power.

Exactly. You've got to be amazed at the nerve of some Arabs. Listening to them whine you'd almost think colonialism was wrong or something.

The sooner they realise the British knew best, the better.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,173
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Exactly. You've got to be amazed at the nerve of some Arabs. Listening to them whine you'd almost think colonialism was wrong or something.

The sooner they realise the British knew best, the better.

Ah, gotcha...

So no arab state that currently exists has any portion of land that they didn't gain through war or other means other than it being given to them? All those countries present have had the exact same amount of land since the beginning of existance and it was never claimed by anyone else?
 

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,657
Reaction score
15,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Exactly. You've got to be amazed at the nerve of some Arabs.

Are you referring to the Arabs who already have umpteen countries of their own, and have almost completely ethnically clensed Jews from these lands while having more land per capita under their control than there is land per capita under Jewish control? THose Arabs?

Thankyou for putting this into proper perspective, namely that this is an issue between Arabs and Jews, one of which occupies enormous swaths of land and persecutes anybody who isn't Arab, and the other group having just the tiniest sliver of land that they share with a signifigant number of Arabs.
 

Slainte

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
1,061
Reaction score
315
Location
Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So no arab state that currently exists has any portion of land that they didn't gain through war or other means other than it being given to them?

Hmm, not many than I can think of, especially since Arab states were mainly colonial constructs, with the borders drawn mainly by their colonial masters. Although an incident may be escaping me. As this question is likely rhetorical, which incident are you thinking of?

All those countries present have had the exact same amount of land since the beginning of existance and it was never claimed by anyone else?

In Europe these disputes were mainly settled through what might be called 'natural processes'. In the Middle East they were, by and large, settled by colonial powers.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,173
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
So there was never territories, generalized borders, etc? I'm not talking necessarily definitive to a T areas like today, but you're saying there was never disputes...never on tribe attacking another and claiming their land? Never one king or government sending forces into a neighboring location and claiming it for themselves? I seem to remember a number of empires spanning throughout the middle east and claiming that land? How ever did they lose that land? Who had the land before?

And hey, if we're just blaming all things colonization and no one had anything defined or claimable prior to that, then I welcome all the rest of the arab governments and nations to disband, declare thier borders completely non-exitstant, and simply allow everyone to function within it and anywhere within it however they want since you're apparently suggesting no groups ever held any kind of territory in definitive way and it seems to be you're suggesting that people were just kind of...there, wherever they felt like, cause you know, territory apparently didn't exist before those bastard "colonizers"
 
Last edited:

Slainte

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
1,061
Reaction score
315
Location
Scotland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So there was never territories, generalized borders, etc? I'm not talking necessarily definitive to a T areas like today, but you're saying there was never disputes...never on tribe attacking another and claiming their land? Never one king or government sending forces into a neighboring location and claiming it for themselves? I seem to remember a number of empires spanning throughout the middle east and claiming that land? How ever did they lose that land? Who had the land before?

I have, obviously, not said these things.

And hey, if we're just blaming all things colonization and no one had anything defined or claimable prior to that, then I welcome all the rest of the arab governments and nations to disband, declare thier borders completely non-exitstant, and simply allow everyone to function within it and anywhere within it however they want since you're apparently suggesting no groups ever held any kind of territory in definitive way and it seems to be you're suggesting that people were just kind of...there, wherever they felt like, cause you know, territory apparently didn't exist before those bastard "colonizers"

Well, this seems like a very well thought out and sensible suggestion, have you considered proposing it to the UN? :rolleyes:

When a colonial power, against the will of the native people of that area, facilitates the large scale immigration of a group of people who have the expressed desire to seize control of that land, there is always going to be trouble. Accepting that such action was unethical is a neccesity if we are going to resolve the current conflict.
 

Tashah

DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,229
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
When a colonial power, against the will of the native people of that area, facilitates the large scale immigration of a group of people who have the expressed desire to seize control of that land, there is always going to be trouble. Accepting that such action was unethical is a neccesity if we are going to resolve the current conflict.
I don't think kicking a rusty 60+ year old can around is going to resolve anything.
 

Degreez

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
3,216
Reaction score
1,021
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I'm sorry, maybe I'm going a bit crazy here...but I'm pretty sure that land in 1947 wasn't the Palestinian's, it was the British's. And I'm pretty sure Britian is the one that chose to allow for the partition and gave a chance for both Israel AND Palestine to have its own defined land under its own controlling power.

And I'm pretty sure only one of those groups took them up on it, and the other went to war.
McMahon-Husain correspondence - Report of Arab-UK committee - UK documentation Cmd. 5974 (excerpts)/Non-UN document (16 March 1939)
The contention that the British Government did intend Palestine to be removed from the sphere of French influence and to be included within the area of Arab independence (that is to say, within the area of future British influence) is also borne out by the measures they took in Palestine during the War. They dropped proclamations by the thousand in all parts of Palestine, which bore a message from the Sharif Husain on one side and a message from the British Command on the other, to the effect that an Anglo-Arab agreement had been arrived at securing the independence of the Arabs, and to ask the Arab population of Palestine to look upon the advancing British Army as allies and liberators and give them every assistance. Under the aegis of the British military authorities, recruiting offices were opened in Palestine to recruit volunteers for the forces of the Arab Revolt. Throughout 1916 and the greater part of 1917, the attitude of the military and political officers of the British Army was clearly based on the understanding that Palestine was destined to form part of the Arab territory which was to be constituted after the War on the basis of independent Arab governments in close alliance with Great Britain.

For Arab support in expelling Ottoman rule, the British agreed to recognize the independence of the Arabs (including Palestine). After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, foreign meddling caused the Mandate system to be made. Countries that happened to be on the side that won believed they should get something, despite it being mainly British and Arab troops that fought Ottomans in that region.

So yes, the territory 'technically' belonged to the British. When they planned for partition, they did it without the consent of the inhabitants of the territory. This is a concept that contradicts the Convenant of the League of Nations and the Charter of the United Nations that calls for self-determination. There is no such thing as self-determination when it is imposed upon you.
 

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
McMahon-Husain correspondence - Report of Arab-UK committee - UK documentation Cmd. 5974 (excerpts)/Non-UN document (16 March 1939)
For Arab support in expelling Ottoman rule, the British agreed to recognize the independence of the Arabs (including Palestine). After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, foreign meddling caused the Mandate system to be made. Countries that happened to be on the side that won believed they should get something, despite it being mainly British and Arab troops that fought Ottomans in that region.
So yes, the territory 'technically' belonged to the British. When they planned for partition, they did it without the consent of the inhabitants of the territory. This is a concept that contradicts the Convenant of the League of Nations and the Charter of the United Nations that calls for self-determination. There is no such thing as self-determination when it is imposed upon you.
We've been thru this scores of times. Which is why you even stopped trying to answer... anything/everything.
The British Promised BOTH Arab and Jews Homelands and that's what happened.

Using only Hussein-McMahon, whose meaning is contested (which is why You Use 'Unispal-estinian' instead of your old practice of Wikipedia to cite it!) isn't exactly straightforward discussion either.
I dealt with/Refuted your alleged interpretation here:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...e-inevitable-says-ehud-17.html#post1058723771
And that destroyed sliver was all you ever head from the many agreements of the time.

One agreement cited instead of many, including 'consenting' ones like http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/faisaltext.html is ridiculous. So narrow as to be the sad position you find your self reduced to:
One interpretation of One agreement!

Many States were created willy-nilly from the Ottoman Breakup and given to ARABS as spoils.. indeed contravening original British and (UN Predecessor) League of Nations intent. The so called 'Lawrence of Arabia Legacy' leading to Arabs probably ruling More than their original range and many groups.

'Iraq' was thrown together from 3 Ottoman provinces, screwing the Kurds and Shia in favor of a Saudi/Sunni Prince for Spoils.

'Jordan' was created from 77% of the British Mandate and given to another Arab/Saudi/Sunni Prince as spoils, leaving 23% for the remaining 'palestinians' and Jews to share. (Jordan Is 70% 'palestinian'). Making lie of earlier promises to the Jews.

Lebanon was Gerrymandered from the French Mandate to have a Christian majority.

NO ONE got to 'consent' in ANY of these new countries.. including the Kurds who are ruled by various groups including Arabs.

This is a Double standard Only asked for to delegitimize Israel/Jews.

However, unlike the 'Iraq', 'Jordan', etc, Israel was at least voted on by an International body/Created along with 'Palestine' (II) by UN Resolution 181.
And the land it was created from had a Jewish majority.

Yet despite all of the above, Only tiny 'Israel' from the huge Ottoman breakup remains a cause celeb because of Jealousy and bigotry.
 
Last edited:

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,860
Reaction score
10,292
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
We've been thru this scores of times. Which is why you even stopped trying to answer... anything/everything.
The British Promised BOTH Arab and Jews Homelands and that's what happened.

That is correct. The 1937 Peel Commission report explains, "Under the stress of the World War the British Government made promises to Arabs and Jews in order to obtain their support. On the strength of those promises both parties formed certain expectations."

One cannot pretend that, in addition to the McMahon-Husain letters, the Balfour Declaration, much less the Feisal-Weizmann Agreement did not happen. Competing promises were made.
 

Degreez

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 2, 2006
Messages
3,216
Reaction score
1,021
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
That is correct. The 1937 Peel Commission report explains, "Under the stress of the World War the British Government made promises to Arabs and Jews in order to obtain their support. On the strength of those promises both parties formed certain expectations."

One cannot pretend that, in addition to the McMahon-Husain letters, the Balfour Declaration, much less the Feisal-Weizmann Agreement did not happen. Competing promises were made.

The Balfour Declaration called for a Jewish National Home to be founded in Palestine. There was never an intention of setting up a Jewish state in Palestine. From the MacDonald White Paper (1939):
"His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. [...] His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State. They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will."

'The objective of His Majesty's Government is the establishment within 10 years of an independent Palestine State in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom as will provide satisfactorily for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries in the future. [..] The independent State should be one in which Arabs and Jews share government in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each community are safeguarded.'

And what you forget about the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement is Faisal's appended condition:
"Provided the Arabs obtain their independence as demanded in my [forthcoming] Memorandum dated the 4th of January, 1919, to the Foreign Office of the Government of Great Britain, I shall concur in the above articles. But if the slightest modification or departure were to be made [regarding our demands], I shall not be then bound by a single word of the present Agreement which shall be deemed void and of no account or validity, and I shall not be answerable in any way whatsoever."
Only Faisal was unaware of the secret negotiations between Sykes and Picot that gave foreign powers authority to administrate the territory. Despite whatever it is you believe, the solutions given during the Palestinian Mandate never once had the approval of the inhabitants of Palestine. This is a concept that is contradictory to self-determination, as envisioned in the UN Charter and the Covenant of the League of Nations. I leave with Balfour's words:
"The contradiction between the letters of the Covenant [of the League of Nations] and the policy of the Allies is even more flagrant in the case of the ‘independent nation’ of Palestine than in that of the ‘independent nation‘ of Syria. For in Palestine we do not propose to even go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country though the American [King-Crane] Commission is going through the form of asking what they are."
 

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The Cherry Picked/UNCONTEXTED/UNLINKED quote from the 1939 White Paper starts previous to Degreez intentionally misleading quote:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1939.asp
Section 1 (after preamble)
"Section I. "The Constitution"

It has been urged that the expression "a national home for the Jewish people" offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government do Not wish to Contest the view, which was expressed by the Royal Commission, that the Zionist leaders at the time of the issue of the Balfour Declaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was Not Precluded by the terms of the Declaration..... [Only THEN/After was quoted Degreez portion]
Continuing with an excerpt more favorable to Israel; AFTER I gave you the Link for the whole thing that is...
His Majesty's Government adhere to this intepretation of the (Balfour) Declaration of 1917 and regard it as an authoritative and comprehensive description of the character of the Jewish National Home in Palestine.
It envisaged the further development of the existing Jewish community with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world. Evidence that His Majesty's Government have been carrying out their obligation in this respect is to be found in the facts that, since the statement of 1922 was published, more than 300,000 Jews have immigrated to Palestine, and that the population of the National Home has risen to some 450,000, or approaching a third of the entire population of the country.
Nor has the Jewish community failed to take full advantage of the opportunities given to it. The growth of the Jewish National Home and its acheivements in many fields are a Remarkable constructive effort which must command the Admiration of the world and must be, in particular, a source of Pride to the Jewish people.
Another White Paper Excerpt further Busting Degreez' take on McMahon:
No wonder he cherry picked and included No Link:
In the recent discussions the Arab delegations have repeated the contention that Palestine was included within the area in which Sir Henry McMahon, on behalf of the British Government, in October, 1915, undertook to recognise and support Arab independence.
The validity of this claim, based on the terms of the correspondence which passed between Sir Henry McMahon and the Sharif of Mecca, was thoroughly and carefully investigated by the British and Arab representatives during the recent conferences in London.
Their report, which has been published, states that both the Arab and the British representatives endeavoured to understand the point of view of the other party but that they were Unable to reach agreement upon an interpretation of the correspondence. There is no need to summarize here the arguments presented by each side. His Majesty's Government regret the misunderstandings which have arisen as regards some of the phrases used. For their part they can only adhere, for the reasons given by their representatives in the Report, to the view that the whole of Palestine west of Jordan was excluded from Sir Henry McMahon's pledge, and they therefore Cannot agree that the McMahon correspondence forms a just basis for the claim that Palestine should be converted into an Arab State.
Yes, The White Paper, even tho a Later and more-favorable-to-Arabs document than the original promises and agreements, [also] further Refutes Degreez' Lynchpin... his oft posted McMahon-Hussain.

and of course he quoted Donald but went on to try and answer My subject matter.
now you see what happens when he does.
And why 'Ignore' is necessary for him.
 
Last edited:

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,860
Reaction score
10,292
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The Balfour Declaration called for a Jewish National Home to be founded in Palestine. There was never an intention of setting up a Jewish state in Palestine. From the MacDonald White Paper (1939):

Your interpretation is out of context. The White Paper only suggests that the entire Palestine region was not assured to become a Jewish state or against the will of its people. By 1947, however, given the irreconcilable differences between the area's two peoples, no single state solution was feasible. But that was later. The White Paper in question does not, in any way, bar the establishment of a Jewish State. Relevant excerpts:

It has been urged that the expression "a national home for the Jewish people" offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government do not wish to contest the view, which was expressed by the Royal Commission, that the Zionist leaders at the time of the issue of the Balfour Declaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration. But, with the Royal Commission, His Majesty's Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. That Palestine was not to be converted into a Jewish State might be held to be implied in the passage from the Command Paper of 1922 which reads as follows

"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. Nor have they at any time contemplated .... the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) 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."


...what you forget about the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement is Faisal's appended condition...

The Feisal-Weizmann Agreement is important in that it demonstrates that initially the Arab leadership welcomed and encouraged Jewish immigration to the region. In other words, the rejectionism that developed did so afterward.
 
Top Bottom