I recently came across this post by Keo2008 on CiF. It is rife with blatant lies. My reply to it, giving the facts of the matter was purged in the process of silencing Talknic (aka inreferenceto). Now, only the lies remain, spreading like filth from an overflowing sewer.
” what the Palestinians/Arabs were asking for in 1947-8.
1) They refused to talk to UNSCOP, so they actually refused to make their case to the UN body they knew would be making recommendations to the UN. If their proposals were reasonable, as you imply, whyb did they throw away the chance to influence the UN vote?.”
Interested to see if they did try to influence the vote, I went first where the facts should surely be truly represented. On the Israeli Government website.
There we find what the Israeli Government puts up as the Recording of UN vote on Resolution 181 – 29 November 1947. The only Arab state included on their version of the recording is Yemen (against).
It seemed a little short for an UNGA vote. So I then cross referenced this information with another reliable source of documents, Avalon Law at Yale University UNGA Resolution 181. Which clearly states, at the bottom of the document:
Adopted at the 128th plenary meeting: In favour: 33 – Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussian S.S.R., Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxemburg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, Ukrainian S.S.R., Union of South Africa, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Uruguay, Venezuela.
Against: 13 – Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.
Abstained: 10 Argentina, Chile, China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.
The Israeli Government web site have edited out the majority of the votes from their ‘record’ing. Is it any wonder people like our friend Keo2008 spread mis-information, when this is what they’re fed.
Snr Keo2008’s post went on:
2) Because of course their proposals were not reasonable at all. They demanded a Single-state solution in which all Palestinians would have the vote, but only those Jews who could prove they (orn their ancestors) were living in Palestine before 1918. That was of course a tiny minority of the Jews in Palestine. The other Jews would be deemed as stateless and liable to be expelled
3) By contrast all Arabs living in Palestine in 1947 would get the vote- even though many of them had only moved into Palestine a few years before.
That is the reality of the Palestinian position in 1947. No wonder the Zionists rejected it. No wonder the UN rejected it. And no wonder the Palestinians didnt even dare put their case to the UN.
ANNEX ON PALESTINE
At the end of the last Great War, Palestine, together with the other Arab States, was separated from the Ottoman Empire. She became independent, not belonging to any other State.
The Treaty of Lausanne (4) proclaimed that her fate should be decided by the parties concerned in Palestine.
Even though Palestine was not able to control her own destiny, it was on the basis of the recognition of her independence that the Covenant of the League of Nations determined a system of government for her.(5)
Her existence and her independence among the nations can, therefore, no more be questioned de jure than the independence of any of the other Arab States.
Even though the outward signs of this independence have remained veiled as a result of force majeure, it is not fitting that this should be an obstacle to the participation of Palestine in the work of the League.
Therefore, the States signatory to the Pact of the Arab League consider that in view of Palestine’s special circumstances, the Council of the League should designate an Arab delegate from Palestine to participate in its work until this country enjoys actual independence.
(4) Here, we need to see The Treaty of Lausanne For which I use the Brigham Young University Library, where we find
The Treaty of Lausanne. SECTION II . NATIONALITY. ARTICLE 30.
Turkish subjects habitually resident in territory which in accordance with the provisions of the present Treaty is detached from Turkey will become ipsofacto, in the conditions laid down by the local law, nationals of the State to which such territory is transferred.
We also find a map a map Which shows us very clearly an area marked PALESTINE. A territory not TRANSFERRED to any state.
So again, the Arab States have only expressed what is in the actual treaty. (the British Mandate over Palestine was an administrative role (occupation). Palestine was not ‘transferred’ to Britain)
Onwards to note (5) and art. 22 of the League of Nations Covenant
(5) See art. 22 of the Covenant and accompanying notes printed in Foreign Relations of the United States: The Paris Peace Conference, 1919, vol. XIII, pp.
The Covenant of the League of Nations
To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.
The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.
The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.
Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.
Thus far, the Arab States have only re-iterated the League of Nations Covenant, which by any standard of decency, are honorable and noble aspirations and also The Treaty of Lausanne, which does indeed show that a clearly defined Palestine, was never transferred to any State.
In order to cross reference this with their intentions in 1948, we need to read the Arab League Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine May 15, 1948, for which I used the Jewish Virtual Library.
Arab League Declaration on the Invasion of Palestine May 15, 1948
The Governments of the Arab States emphasise, on this occasion, what they have already declared before the London Conference and the United Nations, that the only solution of the Palestine problem is the establishment of a unitary Palestinian State, in accordance with democratic principles, whereby its inhabitants will enjoy complete equality before the law, [and whereby] minorities will be assured of all the guarantees recognised in democratic constitutional countries, and [whereby] the holy places will be preserved and the right of access thereto guaranteed.
Snr Keo2008, you’re full of shite! Not only did the Arab States reflect the worthy aspirations of the League of Nations Covenant, they also guarantee to uphold it. Not only were they correct in asserting that Palestine was never transfered to any State, but they guaranteed to protect it and all it’s inhabitants, offering them democracy and freedom of religion.
The complete opposite of the lies allowed to remain, where Facts are Sacred!