Csteele:

“You are immediately dismissive of any evidence I produce about the perceived boundaries of the former Palestine, yet provide none of your own”

On the contrary, I have provided it many times on this thread. I’ll do so again, for your benefit:
The most significant document outlining the boundaries of Palestine was the League of Nations decision setting up the British Mandate. Rings a bell? I mentioned it quite a few times.

I am sorry you find my posts confusing, I will try to simplify:

I dismissed your examples of ‘the concept of Palestine’ not because the concept is not significant, but because you provided bad examples (as I previously explained). Earlier I stated that the concept of Palestine was significant IN BRITISH POLICY. I then proceeded to say that every party involved had a different concept of the boundaries, therefore the best model we have for Palestine would be the League of Nations Mandate. I really don’t know what I can say to make it any clearer. I certainly hope I don’t have to repeat it too many more times.

Confusion, in fact, reigns supreme in your posts. You initially objected to the facts I presented, only to accept the same facts later as ‘correctly qualified’ even though I made no further qualifications. You attribute other posts to me, only to retract it later realising the comment was made by someone else.

Continued…

Dear Avw,

It would appear the cat has your tongue but more likely you are a victim of losing count of your posts in the 24 hour period. Perhaps both maths and logic aren't you strong suits.

Now you again persist in taking liberties with my words. You claim I  "initially objected to the facts I presented, only to accept the same facts later as ‘correctly qualified’". I never accepted any facts from you only that your qualifications rendered you position as one that was acceptable to argue from.

It would seem you are intent on saying the Sykes-Pinot Agreement, the Anglo-French Declaration and the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement are all to be dismissed since only when documents such as the British Palestinian Mandate are officially enacted do they carry the required weight or import, or am I yet again confusing your position?

Continued…

“Furthermore you have avoided the question; do you agree with the view of David Singer”

I have not avoided the question as you claim. This is the first time you put this question to me, so I don’t know how I could have avoided it before.
Many of the opinions raised by David make sense, and are based on solid facts. The British Mandate indeed encompassed Jordan and Israel. There is no love lost between the Hashemites and the Palestinians, and the Jordanian regime is definitely in danger of a takeover by the Palestinians. If it was up to King Abdullah I’m sure he would have preferred having Israel on his border rather than the Palestinians, just as Israel would have preferred Jordan. However, I disagree with David when it comes to his opinion that Jordan will step in to negotiate on behalf of the Palestinians, I cannot see it happening. I also think it is extremely unlikely that the West Bank and Gaza will be divided between Israel, Jordan and possibly Egypt, as David seems to be suggesting. The last thing that any of these states want is to absorb a million Palestinians to subvert their own regimes. No, for better or for worse, the only solution I can see is the formation of an Independent Palestinian state.

Dear Awv,

You continue to truncate my sentences to give them different meanings as you did to imply I am a racist and here you are at it yet again. I had asked you specifically "do you agree with the view of David Singer that Jordan is Palestine?". It is a technique that gives you no credit and I would recommend you refrain from it.

I do however welcome your view that "No, for better or for worse, the only solution I can see is the formation of an Independent Palestinian state." albeit you do so in a rather begrudging fashion.

I probably see it more as a right of a blighted and persecuted people to self determination in their traditional homelands, the same thing we saw fit to extend to the Jews of Europe.

To the Mandate. It did not encompass Jordan and Israel but rather Palestine, Transjordan, parts of Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

Another confusion you appear to have was the role of the League of Nations.

You have claimed "The most significant document outlining the boundaries of Palestine was the League of Nations decision setting up the British Mandate."

Yet Balfour himself acknowledged that "'Mandates were not the creation of the League, and they could not in substance be altered by the League. The League's duties were confined to seeing that the specific and detailed terms of the mandates were in accordance with the decisions taken by the Allied and Associated Powers, and that in carrying out these mandates the Mandatory Powers should be under the supervision—not under the control—of the League.'"

As with the other documents I have raised the Mandate did not have the force of international law until it was enacted and this was well after the delineation of Palestine and Transjordan. Indeed during continued negotiations between the aforementioned Allied and Associated Powers bits were added and other bits given away right up until enactment. I have had occasion to correct David Singer on this point before.

Csteele:

“It would appear the cat has your tongue…”

I’m delighted to see how eagerly you await my next post, to the extent that a slight delay is so difficult for you to bear.

“I never accepted any facts from you only that your qualifications rendered you position as one that was acceptable”

Let me ask you again: what qualifications are you talking about?

“…only when documents such as the British Palestinian Mandate are officially enacted do they carry the required weight…”

Well… Yes. I have already explained why the Sykes-Picot and the Faisal-Weizmann examples don’t carry much weight and I won’t repeat it again here. It is all there in my previous comments.

As for my alleged truncation of your sentences:
By your question “do you agree with the view of David Singer that Jordan is Palestine?", I assume you mean the views David presents in his other articles, or the jordanispalestine website. As I mentioned to you earlier, I have never read any articles from Mr Singer other than this one. Why do I have to repeat everything several times?
I provided you with my view on THIS article, which is the only one I can comment on at this time. I promise to share my views with you if and when I read David’s other articles.

“I do however welcome your view… albeit you do so in a rather begrudging fashion”

Yes, I certainly do. I do not for a moment share your fantasy that this is a good solution. It’s just not quite as bad as other solutions.

“Yet Balfour himself acknowledged that "'Mandates were not the creation of the League…”

The international legality was given by the League of Nations. The Mandate instrument was drafted by the League, not in secrecy between two soon-to-be occupying powers. True – the League only supervised - not controlled the Mandate – control was handed over to Britain (which is why it was called the British Mandate). But without the League of Nations there would have been no Mandate.

csteele,

"I probably see it more as a right of a blighted and persecuted people to self determination in their traditional homelands ..."

The Palestinians have had over 60 yrs to form an independent state, but have not done so. Why?

They have not been prepared to recognise Israel’s (as you state, "the same thing we saw fit to extend to the Jews of Europe"), right to exist. The irony is not lost.

The problems the Palestinians have had with Israel have been brought on by themselves ...

I would like to see an independent, prosperous Palestinian state alongside Israel, a Palestinian state guaranteeing Israel's security and recognising Israel's right to exist.

But, really, do the Palestinians themslves want this?

The following poll (Charts, Frequency Questionnaire) of 1,010 Palestinians (353 in Gaza and 656 in the West Bank) conducted this month by Stanley Greenberg of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research with Palestinian research partner, Palestinian Center for Public Opinion.

http://www.theisraelproject.org/atf/cf/%7B84dc5887-741e-4056-8d91-a389164bc94e%7D/2011-07_PALESTINIAN_SURVEY_CHARTS.PDF?tr=y&auid=8688172

http://www.theisraelproject.org/atf/cf/%7B84dc5887-741e-4056-8d91-a389164bc94e%7D/2011-07_PALESTINIAN_SURVEY_FQ.PDF?tr=y&auid=8688173

There appears to be a lot of unfounded tears wept for these “stateless” people.

The only reason Palestinians would not want a state is that being stateless affords them greater benefits ...

... perhaps not the least, the 1.7 billion plus annual funding disappearing into the Palesstinian black hole, a black hole which does not admit of accountability.

csteele, you state "people to self determination in their traditional homelands". This can no longer go unchallenged.

I have no problems with calling the people Palestinians, however, let us be accurate. Only a tiny minority can claim the area concerned as a traditional homeland; furthermore the area was commonly part of Syria.

I would refer you to documents written by both Sherif Hussein, Guardian of the Islamic Holy Places of Arabia, a leading Arab nationalist, and by his son Emir Faisal, in 1918-1919. Read the latter's letter to Felix Frankfurther, Harvard law professor and subsequent Supreme Court Justice. In addition, an editorial by Dawood Barakat, editor of Egyptian paper "Al-Abram" spelt it out quite clearly. This particular area was desolate, bleak and depopulated.

cont ...