The demographic "poverty', lack of cultivation of the land; abandoned villages and malaria ridden terrain is further well documented in The Report of the Palestine Royal Commission (1913). Also read the Hope Simpson Report (1930) and The Peel Report (1937). The area was a god-forsaken wasteland.

In "Al-Qibla" (March 23, 1918) Sherif Hussein stated that the Palestinian's ancestors had only been in the area 1,000 years, post-dating Jewish habitation. In testimony before the Anglo-American Committee (1946) Palestinians further confirmed this, dating their connection to the area to the conquest by Muhammed's followers. (British Government, Report of the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry, 1946, Part VI, (April 20, 1946)... ... due to invasions, migration, plague etc... entire populations had been replaced more than once.

So few people were on the ground that that during the Mandate period the British brought in more than 100,000 Arabs from neighbouring countries. These are now considered the "traditional people".

Palestinian nationalism, only emerging after WWI, was not in a strong political movement until after Israel’s capture of the West Bank in 1967.

So let's not be twee.

Dear Avw,

There is a saying in New Zealand where I grew up for a bit, it is 'slippery as a butcher's prick'.

Again you have avoided the question “do you agree with the view of David Singer that Jordan is Palestine?" this time by claiming you hadn't read his other articles. Mate! What could be any more in your face than 'Jordan is Palestine'! It doesn't leave much room for ambiguities does it? It is black and white, direct as it could be, but you keep running from it. Put us both out of misery and answer the damn thing for God's sake.

You claimed “The most important authority, the League of Nations, included the whole area as the ‘Mandate of Palestine’, not the ‘Mandate of Transjordan and Palestine’.

No it didn't. This was not its job nor did it have any say in the boundaries.

“Three steps were required to establish a Mandate under international law: (1) The Principal Allied and Associated Powers confer a mandate on one of their number or on a third power; (2) the principal powers officially notify the council of the League of Nations that a certain power has been appointed mandatory for such a certain defined territory; and (3) the council of the League of Nations takes official cognisance of the appointment of the mandatory power and informs the latter that it [the council] considers it as invested with the mandate, and at the same time notifies it of the terms of the mandate, after ascertaining whether they are in conformance with the provisions of the covenant."

Wikipedia quote from Quincy Wright, Mandates under the League of Nations,

As I have stated the Mandate and its boundaries did not become binding until it was enacted but right up until that time they were fluid and Palestine and Transjordan had been delineated well before then.

Cont...

Cont...

Further; “In testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations a former US State Department official who had been a member of the American Commission at Paris, testified that the United Kingdom and France had simply gone ahead and arranged the world to suit themselves. He pointed out that the League of Nations could do nothing to alter their arrangements, since the League could only act by unanimous consent of its members - including the UK and France.”

“United States Secretary of State Robert Lansing was a member of the American Commission to Negotiate Peace at Paris in 1919. He explained that the system of mandates was a device created by the Great Powers to conceal their division of the spoils of war under the color of international law. If the former German and Ottoman territories had been ceded to the victorious powers directly, their economic value would have been credited to offset the Allies' claims for war reparations."

So you tell me which should have more weight on what constituted the former Palestine, the machinations of the victorious 'Four' and totally compliant League or the Faisal-Weizmann agreement?

So when you contend "control was then handed over to Britain' it reveals a patent lack of undersatnding of historical fact. Britain already had control, the League just rubberstamped it.

Dear David Singer and Danielle,

I am unable to chew gum and pat my head at the same time so you must excuse my lack of engagement at this stage, besides which we have thrashed this out before. Perhaps the time could be better spent looking for Danielle's lost irony because you both seem to suffer from it.

To csteele

I don't find chewing gum and patting my head at the same time a problem.

Perhaps you can respond now to my comments to your following statements.

1. "TransJordan on the other hand was recognised as a state by the League of Nations in 1922, a quarter of a century before Israel."

Nonsense. Transjordan only became independent in 1946 two years before Israel.

2."Over 55% of the land of Palestine was given to 30% of the population for a Jewish state. Of the main area left to the Palestinians, the West Bank, over half is now controlled by settlements and the IDF."

Pity you forgot to tell OLO readers that:
(i) Of the 55% offered to the Jews - about 80% comprised the arid Negev desert whilst the mainly fertile areas were offered for an Arab state.
(ii) The Arabs rejected the proposal and sought in 1948 and 1967 to grab the lot and so far have ended up with nothing.
(iii) The Arabs could have had between 1948-1967 what they now say they will accept in 2011 and did nothing about it during that period.
(iv) The Arabs in 2001 and 2008 were offered more than 90% of what they now say they will accept but rejected both offers.

3. "Just for the record the rest of the world thinks stopping settlement construction is a reasonable precondition for the Palestinians."

Neither Oslo nor the Roadmap impose any such precondition. These currently are the only diplomatic and negotiating games in town. Changing the rules in the middle of the game is not going to happen.

There is new furphy you have now added.

You write:

"As I have stated the Mandate and its boundaries did not become binding until it was enacted but right up until that time they were fluid and Palestine and Transjordan had been delineated well before then."

How do you justify this statement with Article 25 of the Mandate which declared:

"In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined....."

Hope you don't choke on your gum.

Dear David Singer,

You kindly said "Hope you don't choke on your gum." and for some reason I feel like patting YOU on the head and saying 'there, there'.

I had kind of imagined that as a lawyer you might have been a little more appreciative of terms and their definitions.

For instance 'recognized as a state' is not the same as 'became independent' not withstanding your attempt to act as though they are the same.

From Wikipedia;
"The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states."

The Emirate of Transjordan was deemed a state in 1922 or if you want to be picky on the 15th of May 1923 when Britain recognized it as an independent government. It became an 'independent sovereign' state in 1946 as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

Now you have a list as long as my arm you wish me to address. Let me have your next priority one and I will attend to it if you wish although I remind you we have been through all this before.

I am off this thread: I cannot see how events of the first half of the last century could be relevant to the current situation.

The people of the middle-east never care about legalities, never did, never will. The only language they understand is that of the sword.