Csteele:

You seem to have a habit of commenting on articles (or posts) without reading what the author has to say. You consider the headline of an article sufficient for you to form an opinion, there is no need for you to waste your time and read the actual text. This is also evident by the number of times I had to repeat my statements before you finally acknowledge or understand them. There are other sayings, much more internationally recognised, about people like this, but I have no wish to antagonise you any further as you seem to have a very short fuse. Unlike you, I would like to read David’s articles before agreeing or disagreeing with him, rather than judging them strictly by their title.

About the Mandate system and its purpose to conceal the division of the spoils of war by the Great Powers: while this is probably true, putting the motion through the League diluted the ambitions of individual members. As you said, “the League could only act by unanimous consent of its members”, not just Britain and France (as in Sykes-Picot). All members had a vote on this issue. In addition, ”Each of the principal Allied powers had a hand in drafting the proposed (British) mandate (of Palestine)” (Wiki), once again, not just secret agreements between Britain and France. These discussions were in the open, not in secrecy, which appears to be your preferred way of handling international agreements. I suppose you would have been a great supporter of the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact as well: it contained all your cherished principles: two powers dividing the area of a third country between them, in complete secrecy, with no debate and no scrutiny whatsoever. Sorry, I don’t subscribe to your view of such a wonderfully dark utopia.

(continued)

(continued)

“Three steps were required to establish a Mandate under international law…”

Yes, but

“draft mandates adopted by the Allied and Associated Powers would not be definitive until they had been considered and approved by the League ... the legal title held by the mandatory Power must be a double one: one conferred by the Principal Powers and the other conferred by the League of Nations” (Wikipedia, same page as your quote)

And as I said before, the Mandate was “Mandate of Palestine”, not separate Mandates for the areas east and west of the river.

“So when you contend "control was then handed over to Britain' it reveals a patent lack of understanding of historical fact”

The paragraph you took that quote out of was dealing with the Mandate. By “control” I was referring to control of the Mandate, not the territory. One cannot have control of the Mandate before that Mandate exists. Once again, by skimming through and selecting random sentences to object to you lost the context.

In all the posts we have written regarding this issue it’s obvious we are simply rehashing the same positions. It is clear we are not going to agree. I must say I tend to agree with the point raised by Yuyutsu: While it is interesting to analyse historical events that took place 100 years ago, they have diminishing relevance to the current situation.

Dear Awv,

Yet another convoluted non answer. Okay, if even evoking God has little effect then I will desist.

All I hope is that unlike Mr Singer, in your more reflective moments, you might consider the historical extent of Palestine is far closer to the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement than what existed for a few years on the temporary maps of the victors.

As to a short fuse while agreeing that any thread on an article by Mr Singer brings out a certain belligerence in me I think most people would bar up at being inferred a racist. But hell, in the end you are just a disembodied, anonymous, word producing entity on the web so it's rather hard to get too fired up. Call me that to my face and I'm sure you might get a more definitive answer about the length of my fuse.

I have read the vast majority of the articles posted by Mr Singer on OLO and commented on a fair share of those. I have also read other pieces by him on some fairly rightwing sites overseas. I think I have a reasonable take on the man.

I am of the opinion that he attempts a revisionist approach to the history of the region in order to firstly delegitimize any attempt for self-determination by the Palestinian people and secondly to advance and legitimize the Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

This is why I disagree with Yuyutsu, if these abhorrent views are being propagated with little resistance they may well be a barrier to achieving peace now.

Finally I have a choice of agreeing with you and Mr Singer about the League of Nation's control or that of Robert Lansing who "testified that the United Kingdom and France had simply gone ahead and arranged the world to suit themselves.". He gets my vote.

csteele,

In defending its territory and ensuring its security, Israel has adhered to international law and relevant Resolutions. Israel has operated no differently to other Western-style democracies given the same parlous situation. In fact, I can provide a reference, a guide "The Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations ... " which is far more aggressive and decisive than Israel has demonstrated in defending itself.

Those who choose to criticise Israel's actions, never provide alternative solutions ... alternative solutions to the many attacks on Israel, nor Palestinian baying for its destruction.

Whilst many may not like the idea of Jewish settlements on the West Bank, there was never the expectation nor condition that this area should be Judenfrei.

I suggest you visit the following
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGYxLWUKwWo

csteele,

"Robert Lansing who "testified that the United Kingdom and France had simply gone ahead and arranged the world to suit themselves. ..."

Indeed. And none of these states have rushed to dismantle themselves after the departure of the UK and France.

csteele

You state:

"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."

"Deemed" a state when Britain recognized it as an independent government?

Do you have any authorities to support your contention?

There is certainly evidence to the contrary that does not support this view.

Article 5 of the Mandate stipulated:

"The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power"

Because of this provision Britain notified the League that it accepted full responsibility as Mandatory for Transjordan and advised that the Administration of Transjordan was under the general supervision of Britain.

Nothing could be done in Transjordan without Britain's consent until 1946.

So much for an "independent government".

I am still awaiting your responses to three other matters I raised.