I have just managed to read the introductory chapter of Matthew Hughes' "Britain's Pacification of Palestine: The British Army, the Colonial State, and the Arab Revolt, 1936-1939 (Cambridge Military Histories) and discovered the name el-Asi, the nom de plume of Assistant District Commissioner Aubrey Lees. He served in various administrative offices during 1929-1938 in Haifa, Gaza, Hebron and Jaffa dealing with matters of land settlement.
Lees was kicked out of the Mandate administration for his too pro-Palestinien Arab views and for criticizing the Palestinian Government's attitude towards alleged Jewish atrocities and he was eventually imprisoned by Britian during World War II as a fascist. In 1939 he was accused of expressing anti-Semitic views and refused a reappointment back in Palestine and he continued his anti-Semitism in England.
Hughes, quoting an internal US Consulate General report from January 11, 1930 (867N.00/77-330 [Reel M#1037/1], NARA II), notes there were many British Mandate officials who had 'no real sympathy' for Jewish claims to Palestine and felt an injustice was being donw to the local Arabs. That is a repeat of the 1918-1920 period when British Military Government officers, before the Mandate was in place, almost succeeded in sabotaging the Jewish national home project at its start, including prodding Arabs to riot and kill Jews.
^
Showing posts with label 194. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 194. Show all posts
Friday, January 24, 2020
Sunday, March 05, 2017
The 'Right of Return' - An Historical Note
When discussing the so-called 'right of return' of Arabs from the area of the Mandate of Palestine, much emphasis is placed on whether that "return" is in addition to the compensation element of UN 194, an alternative to compensation or neither as such a "right" does not exist.
Israel has always pointed out, on an across-the-board and all-inclusive political spectrum of left to right that any return would affect the Jewish character of the state and the refugees would pose not only an immediate security problem but also a long-term demographuic one.
One aspect, however, is overlooked.
It can be found in this UN document,
which reads
In other words, the return of Arabs could result in Israel's territory being removed from the state's sovereignty. That was the operative intention.
The Arabs, including the Palestinian Authority, have always been nebulous about numbers and the framework of that 'right of return'. They have been also quite clear in the past as to designs on pushing Israel back into the 1947 boundaries, those the Arabs rejected and then went to war on November 30, 1947.
The 'return' of refugees was not a humanitarian measure but a method for undoing Israel's existence then and could be so exploited in the future.
^
Israel has always pointed out, on an across-the-board and all-inclusive political spectrum of left to right that any return would affect the Jewish character of the state and the refugees would pose not only an immediate security problem but also a long-term demographuic one.
One aspect, however, is overlooked.
It can be found in this UN document,
UNITED NATIONS CONCILIATION COMMISSION FOR PALESTINE,
COMMITTEE ON JERUSALEM, THIRD PROGRESS REPORT
which reads
31. It has already been indicated (see paragraph 17 above) that, for their part, the Arab delegations made a proposal that the refugees coming from certain areas defined on the map annexed to the Protocol of 12 May, comprising those from Western Galilee, from the town of Jaffa, from the central area including Lydda, Ramle and Beersheba, from the southern coastal zone and from the Jerusalem area as defined on the above-mentioned map, should be enabled to return to their homes forthwith. In the course of discussion with the Commission, the Arab delegations have indicated that this proposal bears a territorial aspect, since it envisages the return of refugees to areas designated as Arab territory, and which are in principle to be recognized as Arab territory.
In other words, the return of Arabs could result in Israel's territory being removed from the state's sovereignty. That was the operative intention.
The Arabs, including the Palestinian Authority, have always been nebulous about numbers and the framework of that 'right of return'. They have been also quite clear in the past as to designs on pushing Israel back into the 1947 boundaries, those the Arabs rejected and then went to war on November 30, 1947.
The 'return' of refugees was not a humanitarian measure but a method for undoing Israel's existence then and could be so exploited in the future.
^
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Worried About September?
I'm still worried about November. Yes, November. Not this coming September and 194.
It's November 1947 that's troubling me, when this was adopted by the General Assembly which included a request that:
Note, "settlement" there means peaceful resolution of 30 years of conflict that began when Arabs launched a political terror campaign of violence against civilians. And who do you think attempted to alter by force that resolution?
And as for those who insist that Jewish residency locations, aka "settlements", are illegal, review this, from the League of Nations in 1922:
That was the international law in force and consider that Article 25 actually reinforced that legal foundation by defining the territories where "close settlement by Jews" would, temporarily, would not be permitted as
In other words, Judea and Samaria and Gaza are surely areas where Jews can reside, plant fields, build homes and play soccer. They lie between the Jordan River and the western boundary of the Palerstine Mandate. Jews were discriminated against therein and then Great Britain decided to create, for an Arab refugee from Saudi Arabia, a new state where one never existed before, to be called TransJordan which evolved into the hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
Moreover, that Article 25 ended with this provision:
Article 15, if you are interested (or think I am hiding something) reads, in part:
So, it really is quite simple.
Jews have the right to be in Shiloh. Which I fulfill daily. And have for the past 30 years.
And I intend to do so for a long time to come.
^
It's November 1947 that's troubling me, when this was adopted by the General Assembly which included a request that:
The Security Council determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, in accordance with Article 39 of the Charter, any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by this resolution;
Note, "settlement" there means peaceful resolution of 30 years of conflict that began when Arabs launched a political terror campaign of violence against civilians. And who do you think attempted to alter by force that resolution?
And as for those who insist that Jewish residency locations, aka "settlements", are illegal, review this, from the League of Nations in 1922:
The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands...
That was the international law in force and consider that Article 25 actually reinforced that legal foundation by defining the territories where "close settlement by Jews" would, temporarily, would not be permitted as
In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions...
In other words, Judea and Samaria and Gaza are surely areas where Jews can reside, plant fields, build homes and play soccer. They lie between the Jordan River and the western boundary of the Palerstine Mandate. Jews were discriminated against therein and then Great Britain decided to create, for an Arab refugee from Saudi Arabia, a new state where one never existed before, to be called TransJordan which evolved into the hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
Moreover, that Article 25 ended with this provision:
...provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.
Article 15, if you are interested (or think I am hiding something) reads, in part:
No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.
So, it really is quite simple.
Jews have the right to be in Shiloh. Which I fulfill daily. And have for the past 30 years.
And I intend to do so for a long time to come.
^
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
