Stucky
Superstar
- Joined
- May 17, 2020
- Messages
- 5,951
Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it.
Jonathan Swift.
The falsehood. Britain gave Palestine in its entirety [including Transjordan] as a state [national home] to the Jewish people via the Balfour declaration. This declaration became International law at San Remo.
For the above to be true A) Britain would have to have given Palestine to world Jewry and B) National home would have to mean 'State'
So here's some quotes from the people in the know,
“I am well aware that the Zionist leaders have accepted fully the limitations of the Jewish National Home policy set out in the White Paper of 1922. At the same time, other important sections of the Jewish people have taken a different view, and there is no doubt that a number of the protests which are being made throughout the world are inspired by the conception that what we are trying to do in Palestine is to create a Jewish State and not what we are really trying to do — to create a Jewish National Home in Palestine, which is a different thing”.
Dr. Drummond Shiels, British under-secretary for the colonies.
“Partition enables the Jews in the fullest sense to call the National Home their own : For it converts it into a Jewish State. Its citizens will be able to admit as many
Jews into it as they themselves .believe can be absorbed.
They will attain the primary ‘objective ,of Zionism-a Jewish
nation, planted in Palestine, giving its nationals the same
status in the world as other nations give theirs. They will
cease at last to live a ” minority life.”
Peel Commission Partition plan.
"It was, indeed, well understood that not all the Jews could, in any circumstances, go to Palestine. A country so small could by no possibility absorb and maintain 16 millions of people. Not all the Jews could go to Palestine; and not all Palestine could go to the Jews, on account of the rights of the people already there-rights which, in accordance with fundamental principles of British administration, were as clearly recognised in the words of the Balfour Declaration as were the rights of the Jews to reestablish their National Home."
Sir Herbert Samuel, First high commissioner of Palestine.
"While Mr. Balfour’s Declaration had provided for the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, this was not the same thing as the reconstitution of Palestine as a Jewish National Home—an extension of the phrase for which there was no justification."
Lord Curzon, Foreign Secretary.
So the Brits knew.
The French Knew Here
The Americans knew Here
And the Zionists of the time knew,
"The object of Zionism is to establish for the Jewish people a home in Palestine secured by public law […] It has been said and is still being obstinately repeated by anti-Zionists again and again, that Zionism aims at the creation of an independent ‘Jewish State’. But this is wholly fallacious. The ‘Jewish State’ was never part of the Zionist programme. The Jewish State was the title of Herzl’s first pamphlet, which had the supreme merit of forcing people to think. This pamphlet was followed by the first Zionist Congress, which accepted the Basle programme – the only programme in existence.”
Nahum Sokolov.
So that leaves us with the question of Transjordan [ I wont discuss San Remo as it is so stupid it hurts my brain. if interested though just type in san remo agreement into a search engine]. Was TransJordan included in the 'National Home'? The answer is no and we only need to look at one quote to prove so.
“Forgive my addressing a personal message to you and the prime minister. I am deeply convinced we shall be making a grave error of policy if we do not now include Trans-Jordania in Palestine, It will certainly result in anarchy or French control across the border. Either would be disastrous and involve a larger garrison and at greater expense. I should never advise the Government to embark on military adventure. This is not such. Will the Government authorise occupation if there is spontaneous formal and public demand from all heads of all tribes and districts concerned?”
Herbert Samuel private telegram to Lord Curzon, August 7th 1920.
Jonathan Swift.
The falsehood. Britain gave Palestine in its entirety [including Transjordan] as a state [national home] to the Jewish people via the Balfour declaration. This declaration became International law at San Remo.
For the above to be true A) Britain would have to have given Palestine to world Jewry and B) National home would have to mean 'State'
So here's some quotes from the people in the know,
“I am well aware that the Zionist leaders have accepted fully the limitations of the Jewish National Home policy set out in the White Paper of 1922. At the same time, other important sections of the Jewish people have taken a different view, and there is no doubt that a number of the protests which are being made throughout the world are inspired by the conception that what we are trying to do in Palestine is to create a Jewish State and not what we are really trying to do — to create a Jewish National Home in Palestine, which is a different thing”.
Dr. Drummond Shiels, British under-secretary for the colonies.
“Partition enables the Jews in the fullest sense to call the National Home their own : For it converts it into a Jewish State. Its citizens will be able to admit as many
Jews into it as they themselves .believe can be absorbed.
They will attain the primary ‘objective ,of Zionism-a Jewish
nation, planted in Palestine, giving its nationals the same
status in the world as other nations give theirs. They will
cease at last to live a ” minority life.”
Peel Commission Partition plan.
"It was, indeed, well understood that not all the Jews could, in any circumstances, go to Palestine. A country so small could by no possibility absorb and maintain 16 millions of people. Not all the Jews could go to Palestine; and not all Palestine could go to the Jews, on account of the rights of the people already there-rights which, in accordance with fundamental principles of British administration, were as clearly recognised in the words of the Balfour Declaration as were the rights of the Jews to reestablish their National Home."
Sir Herbert Samuel, First high commissioner of Palestine.
"While Mr. Balfour’s Declaration had provided for the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, this was not the same thing as the reconstitution of Palestine as a Jewish National Home—an extension of the phrase for which there was no justification."
Lord Curzon, Foreign Secretary.
So the Brits knew.
The French Knew Here
The Americans knew Here
And the Zionists of the time knew,
"The object of Zionism is to establish for the Jewish people a home in Palestine secured by public law […] It has been said and is still being obstinately repeated by anti-Zionists again and again, that Zionism aims at the creation of an independent ‘Jewish State’. But this is wholly fallacious. The ‘Jewish State’ was never part of the Zionist programme. The Jewish State was the title of Herzl’s first pamphlet, which had the supreme merit of forcing people to think. This pamphlet was followed by the first Zionist Congress, which accepted the Basle programme – the only programme in existence.”
Nahum Sokolov.
So that leaves us with the question of Transjordan [ I wont discuss San Remo as it is so stupid it hurts my brain. if interested though just type in san remo agreement into a search engine]. Was TransJordan included in the 'National Home'? The answer is no and we only need to look at one quote to prove so.
“Forgive my addressing a personal message to you and the prime minister. I am deeply convinced we shall be making a grave error of policy if we do not now include Trans-Jordania in Palestine, It will certainly result in anarchy or French control across the border. Either would be disastrous and involve a larger garrison and at greater expense. I should never advise the Government to embark on military adventure. This is not such. Will the Government authorise occupation if there is spontaneous formal and public demand from all heads of all tribes and districts concerned?”
Herbert Samuel private telegram to Lord Curzon, August 7th 1920.
