The original mandate of the Balfour Declaration

[OldSchool2]

... TLF, I don't think we are going to agree on this, as I think I and John will agreed that God rules the world and put it in England's hand to do His will:

...that the Most High ruleth the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will.  Daniel 4:25b

What authority do you think England had?

Did they have control of the land to give it to the Jews when the Balfour declaration was drafted?

I believe that England did control the land at the time.

Not during WWI

Prime Minister Lloyd George's directive during WWI was for Gen. Allenby to capture Jerusalem by Christmas 1917; he took it from the Ottomans with two weeks to spare.

Didn't you see "Lawrence of Arabia"?

Yes I have seen Lawrence of Arabia.   Excellent movie.   

The Balfour declaration was written BEFORE this happened, and in fact, was ordered not to be published in Palestine because General Allenby's forces were still south of the Gaza-Beersheba line.    Palestine was still in control of the Ottoman Empire in Turkey....

"... Before the end of the war the rest of Palestine was occupied by the British, and by October 1918 the Ottomans had capitulated. Under the terms of the League of Nations the British won the mandate of Palestine, including Jerusalem. They did not leave until May 1948."

http://www.thejc.com/news/on-day/42312/on-day-allenby-captures-jerusalem

[thereselittleflower]

... TLF, I don't think we are going to agree on this, as I think I and John will agreed that God rules the world and put it in England's hand to do His will:

...that the Most High ruleth the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will.  Daniel 4:25b

What authority do you think England had?

Did they have control of the land to give it to the Jews when the Balfour declaration was drafted?

I believe that England did control the land at the time.

Not during WWI

Prime Minister Lloyd George's directive during WWI was for Gen. Allenby to capture Jerusalem by Christmas 1917; he took it from the Ottomans with two weeks to spare.

Didn't you see "Lawrence of Arabia"?

Yes I have seen Lawrence of Arabia.   Excellent movie.   

The Balfour declaration was written BEFORE this happened, and in fact, was ordered not to be published in Palestine because General Allenby's forces were still south of the Gaza-Beersheba line.    Palestine was still in control of the Ottoman Empire in Turkey....

"... Before the end of the war the rest of Palestine was occupied by the British, and by October 1918 the Ottomans had capitulated. Under the terms of the League of Nations the British won the mandate of Palestine, including Jerusalem. They did not leave until May 1948."

http://www.thejc.com/news/on-day/42312/on-day-allenby-captures-jerusalem

It doesn't matter.  Occupation does not confer ownership.   Occupation is simply occupation.   Palestine did not become part of the British Empire till well after the Balfour declaration was written.

Your source is giving a very abbreviated rendition of the facts, trying to portray something was a certain way.

 the British Mandate for Palestine, was drawn up in 1920 and came into effect on this day in 1923, Sept. 29. Issued by the League of Nations, the Mandate formalized British rule over parts of the Levant (the region that comprises countries to the east of the Mediterranean), as part of the League’s goal of administrating the region’s formerly Ottoman nations “until such time as they are able to stand alone.”

http://time.com/3445003/mandatory-palestine/

 

Britain, as a member of the League of Nations, Britan was bound by the 

The Covenant of the League of Nations

 

ARTICLE 22.

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

The character of the mandate must differ according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and other similar circumstances.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.

Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.

There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population.

In every case of mandate, the Mandatory shall render to the Council an annual report in reference to the territory committed to its charge.

The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council.

A permanent Commission shall be constituted to receive and examine the annual reports of the Mandatories and to advise the Council on all matters relating to the observance of the mandates.

 

Until legally recognized by the League of Nations to be administers of such a mandate, their occupation gave them no right at all to dispense with the land however they wished.

Your source fails to acknowledge the limit of their power under such agreements and/or understandings at the time.

 

 

Edited September 12, 2015 by thereselittleflower

[MorningGlory]

This was what Israel was whittled down to in 1947 just prior to becoming a sovereign nation in 1948.

Personally, I think what was causing the problem was not Churchill but the map identifying the (UN Admin) under the name of the Holy city Jerusalem.  I just don't picture the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob telling them to let the UN set up shop on His land.  

I don't have any issues with the restoration of Israel myself.  I think that an end to the persecution of the church is something to look forward to in the future.  Israel didn't have to worry about persecution or suffer hardship if they obeyed the Lord.  I would love that.  I have had kind of a tough life you know.  I wouldn't mind being asked to travel to a land of milk and honey and be given everything I could ever possibly want like Israel was. 

I just don't know that when I read the Bible and compare the stories of Israel inheriting the land in the Old Testament, to the stories of the Jews migrating to Israel after the Holocaust.  I don't know, something just rubs me the wrong way.  I just don't picture God restoring Israel through such a barbaric event like the holocaust.  In the Old Testament, when the tribes of Jacob inherited Israel, it was fairly effortless in comparison.  This does not seem effortless, which makes me question whether this "restoration of Israel" that we are told is taking place, is the actual restoration of Israel.   

So the Jews have been coming back for over sixty five years now to the country which declared itself to be Israel but you don't think this is the restoration of that country?  What is it then????









c So

[Esther4:14]

This was what Israel was whittled down to in 1947 just prior to becoming a sovereign nation in 1948.

Personally, I think what was causing the problem was not Churchill but the map identifying the (UN Admin) under the name of the Holy city Jerusalem.  I just don't picture the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob telling them to let the UN set up shop on His land.  

I don't have any issues with the restoration of Israel myself.  I think that an end to the persecution of the church is something to look forward to in the future.  Israel didn't have to worry about persecution or suffer hardship if they obeyed the Lord.  I would love that.  I have had kind of a tough life you know.  I wouldn't mind being asked to travel to a land of milk and honey and be given everything I could ever possibly want like Israel was. 

I just don't know that when I read the Bible and compare the stories of Israel inheriting the land in the Old Testament, to the stories of the Jews migrating to Israel after the Holocaust.  I don't know, something just rubs me the wrong way.  I just don't picture God restoring Israel through such a barbaric event like the holocaust.  In the Old Testament, when the tribes of Jacob inherited Israel, it was fairly effortless in comparison.  This does not seem effortless, which makes me question whether this "restoration of Israel" that we are told is taking place, is the actual restoration of Israel.   

So the Jews have been coming back for over sixty five years now to the country which declared itself to be Israel but you don't think this is the restoration of that country?  What is it then????









c So

2 Thessalonians 2:4;9-12 talks about this.  

"He opposes every so-called god or anything that is worshiped and places himself above them, sitting in God’s temple and claiming to be God...The man of sin will come with the power of Satan. He will use every kind of power, including miraculous and wonderful signs. But they will be lies. ¹⁰ He will use everything that God disapproves of to deceive those who are dying, those who refused to love the truth that would save them. ¹¹ That’s why God will send them a powerful delusion so that they will believe a lie. ¹² Then everyone who did not believe the truth, but was delighted with what God disapproves of, will be condemned." 

Migrating Jews who were victims of the Holocaust is a way to justify these verses fulfilled. 

The problem is that the way we are interpreting prophecy is a hodge pog.  We are talking about rapture, tribulations, things getting worse, the seals and the whole schebang being fulfilled in seven years; and, expecting that the restoration of Israel is happening simultaneously with this interpretation, which doesn’t really make sense.  It just doesn’t make sense to say that the world is going to come under His wrath so He plans on picking up believers the way He picked up Elijah in a chariot of fire.  But, what happens to the plans for the present interpretation of the restoration of Israel.  Does He just press the hold button?  The whole picture of how we are interpreting prophecy doesn’t fit together very well.   

These things can’t all happen simultaneously.  The prophecy says the witnesses, “dead bodies will lie on the street of the important city where their Lord was crucified,” (Revelation 11:8).  If that hasn’t happened yet, does that sound like something that would happen in Israel if this was the fulfillment of the restoration of Israel?    

However, I think the reason that we are so willing to believe that this is part of the fulfillment of prophecy is because we want those who are Jewish and still don’t accept the Messiah to be saved.  We have the desire to see to Israel restored.  However, the desire and the reality are two different things. 

The book of Revelation does a lot to contradict that this is the fulfillment of the words of the prophets concerning Israel.  It does not describe a restoration of Israel until after the time of great tribulation. 

[MorningGlory]

2 Thessalonians 2:4;9-12 talks about this.  

"He opposes every so-called god or anything that is worshiped and places himself above them, sitting in God’s temple and claiming to be God...The man of sin will come with the power of Satan. He will use every kind of power, including miraculous and wonderful signs. But they will be lies. ¹⁰ He will use everything that God disapproves of to deceive those who are dying, those who refused to love the truth that would save them. ¹¹ That’s why God will send them a powerful delusion so that they will believe a lie. ¹² Then everyone who did not believe the truth, but was delighted with what God disapproves of, will be condemned." 

Migrating Jews who were victims of the Holocaust is a way to justify these verses fulfilled. 

The problem is that the way we are interpreting prophecy is a hodge pog.  We are talking about rapture, tribulations, things getting worse, the seals and the whole schebang being fulfilled in seven years; and, expecting that the restoration of Israel is happening simultaneously with this interpretation, which doesn’t really make sense.  It just doesn’t make sense to say that the world is going to come under His wrath so He plans on picking up believers the way He picked up Elijah in a chariot of fire.  But, what happens to the plans for the present interpretation of the restoration of Israel.  Does He just press the hold button?  The whole picture of how we are interpreting prophecy doesn’t fit together very well.   

These things can’t all happen simultaneously.  The prophecy says the witnesses, “dead bodies will lie on the street of the important city where their Lord was crucified,” (Revelation 11:8).  If that hasn’t happened yet, does that sound like something that would happen in Israel if this was the fulfillment of the restoration of Israel?    

However, I think the reason that we are so willing to believe that this is part of the fulfillment of prophecy is because we want those who are Jewish and still don’t accept the Messiah to be saved.  We have the desire to see to Israel restored.  However, the desire and the reality are two different things. 

The book of Revelation does a lot to contradict that this is the fulfillment of the words of the prophets concerning Israel.  It does not describe a restoration of Israel until after the time of great tribulation. 

The subject of this thread is not the Tribulation, the Rapture, the Two Witnesses, the Seals or anything else but the original mandate of the Balfour Declaration.  If you don't think that millions of Jews resettling in Israel, starting with that declaration, is the restoration of that country then I am baffled as to what you DO think that signifies.

[Esther4:14]

2 Thessalonians 2:4;9-12 talks about this.  

"He opposes every so-called god or anything that is worshiped and places himself above them, sitting in God’s temple and claiming to be God...The man of sin will come with the power of Satan. He will use every kind of power, including miraculous and wonderful signs. But they will be lies. ¹⁰ He will use everything that God disapproves of to deceive those who are dying, those who refused to love the truth that would save them. ¹¹ That’s why God will send them a powerful delusion so that they will believe a lie. ¹² Then everyone who did not believe the truth, but was delighted with what God disapproves of, will be condemned." 

Migrating Jews who were victims of the Holocaust is a way to justify these verses fulfilled. 

The problem is that the way we are interpreting prophecy is a hodge pog.  We are talking about rapture, tribulations, things getting worse, the seals and the whole schebang being fulfilled in seven years; and, expecting that the restoration of Israel is happening simultaneously with this interpretation, which doesn’t really make sense.  It just doesn’t make sense to say that the world is going to come under His wrath so He plans on picking up believers the way He picked up Elijah in a chariot of fire.  But, what happens to the plans for the present interpretation of the restoration of Israel.  Does He just press the hold button?  The whole picture of how we are interpreting prophecy doesn’t fit together very well.   

These things can’t all happen simultaneously.  The prophecy says the witnesses, “dead bodies will lie on the street of the important city where their Lord was crucified,” (Revelation 11:8).  If that hasn’t happened yet, does that sound like something that would happen in Israel if this was the fulfillment of the restoration of Israel?    

However, I think the reason that we are so willing to believe that this is part of the fulfillment of prophecy is because we want those who are Jewish and still don’t accept the Messiah to be saved.  We have the desire to see to Israel restored.  However, the desire and the reality are two different things. 

The book of Revelation does a lot to contradict that this is the fulfillment of the words of the prophets concerning Israel.  It does not describe a restoration of Israel until after the time of great tribulation. 

The subject of this thread is not the Tribulation, the Rapture, the Two Witnesses, the Seals or anything else but the original mandate of the Balfour Declaration.  If you don't think that millions of Jews resettling in Israel, starting with that declaration, is the restoration of that country then I am baffled as to what you DO think that signifies.

2 Thessalonians 2:4;9-12 talks about this.  

"He opposes every so-called god or anything that is worshiped and places himself above them, sitting in God’s temple and claiming to be God...The man of sin will come with the power of Satan. He will use every kind of power, including miraculous and wonderful signs. But they will be lies. ¹⁰ He will use everything that God disapproves of to deceive those who are dying, those who refused to love the truth that would save them. ¹¹ That’s why God will send them a powerful delusion so that they will believe a lie. ¹² Then everyone who did not believe the truth, but was delighted with what God disapproves of, will be condemned." 

Migrating Jews who were victims of the Holocaust is a way to justify these verses fulfilled. 

The problem is that the way we are interpreting prophecy is a hodge pog.  We are talking about rapture, tribulations, things getting worse, the seals and the whole schebang being fulfilled in seven years; and, expecting that the restoration of Israel is happening simultaneously with this interpretation, which doesn’t really make sense.  It just doesn’t make sense to say that the world is going to come under His wrath so He plans on picking up believers the way He picked up Elijah in a chariot of fire.  But, what happens to the plans for the present interpretation of the restoration of Israel.  Does He just press the hold button?  The whole picture of how we are interpreting prophecy doesn’t fit together very well.   

These things can’t all happen simultaneously.  The prophecy says the witnesses, “dead bodies will lie on the street of the important city where their Lord was crucified,” (Revelation 11:8).  If that hasn’t happened yet, does that sound like something that would happen in Israel if this was the fulfillment of the restoration of Israel?    

However, I think the reason that we are so willing to believe that this is part of the fulfillment of prophecy is because we want those who are Jewish and still don’t accept the Messiah to be saved.  We have the desire to see to Israel restored.  However, the desire and the reality are two different things. 

The book of Revelation does a lot to contradict that this is the fulfillment of the words of the prophets concerning Israel.  It does not describe a restoration of Israel until after the time of great tribulation. 

The subject of this thread is not the Tribulation, the Rapture, the Two Witnesses, the Seals or anything else but the original mandate of the Balfour Declaration.  If you don't think that millions of Jews resettling in Israel, starting with that declaration, is the restoration of that country then I am baffled as to what you DO think that signifies.

I understand that.  I was using them to answer the question because they are relevant to consider whether this is the fulfillment of prophecy.  So maybe, you might want to explain how you think the process of restoration transitions through the period of tribulation; and, how this can be considered the restoration of Israel according to the account in Revelation 11 which says that the witnesses will die in the city where their Lord was crucified (Revelation 11:8)?  I just don't see how they fit together. 

And, I will tell that I do think that this signifies setting the stage to fulfill Revelation 11, so hopefully you will not feel baffled anymore. 

But, again, like I said earlier.  I have the same desire to see people saved who migrated to Israel.  I do not think they are responsible for this.  I would love for them to find Jesus and be saved and for them to experience the joy of restoration. 

[Guest shiloh357]

The British Mandate was that Palestine would be under the administrative control of Britain to the end that Palestine was to be made a Jewish homeland.   The British Empire violated their mandate and gave 75% of Palestine to the Arabs to be what we know today, as the country of Jordan.   The remaining 25% was going to be divided yet again and in 1936 was proposed as the first of three "partition plans"  with the Jews only retaining 13% of what was left of the mandate.   The Arabs refused that plan, as they wanted the entire remaining portion of the mandate with the Jews being forced to live as dhimmis under Arab rule.

The 2nd partition plan was 1947 and again, rejected by the Arabs.  Israel accepted the plan and on May 14th, 1948, became a sovereign nation, and there was no Palestinian nation.   Israel survived a multi-nation Arab war meant to wipe Israel off the map.  They failed, because God fights for Israel.  The Arabs were soundly defeated and rightfully humiliated as a result.

The 3rd partition plan was in 2000 when Israel met with PLO leader Yasir Arafat at Camp David.  Even Bill Clinton was shocked when Yasir Arafat walked away from the table after Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians 93% of what they asked for as the opening bid in the negotiation.  Arafat made no counter proposal, but walked away from the table when the offer was made and headed back to Israel to launch the 2nd Intifada.

 

your right then, it does look like we are in Ezekiel 26.  The Balfour Declaration sounds exactly like verse 5.  "Surely I have spoken in my hot jealousy against the rest of the nations and against all Edom, who gave my land to themselves as a possession with wholehearted joy and utter contempt, that they might make its pasturelands a prey."  This would line up with Revelation 18 where Babylon is fallen because God's wrath has been completed against the nations, and all of Edom, who took Israel for themselves like when they enacted a Balfour declaration.  They took Israel as a possession for themselves and set up the UN administration building in Jerusalem.  The UN is very motivated in pursuing something like an international united states, which lines up more with the prophecy of the Antichrist than with the restoration of Israel.  

They issued a report on the subject called "Our Global Neighborhood The Report of the Commission on Global Governance."  So, is Israel really being restored?  If this is the restoration of Israel, when do you think the UN is going to leave and the nation will actually become a nation under God like it was in the time of David, which Ezekial 26:25-26 suggests?  When did Israel ever exist as it does today when the people inherited the land after their time in the wilderness?  They never had other nations piggy backing them like they have since they were taken to Babylon.     

When does He ever share His glory with other nations?  Is it not true that other nations are receiving glory for the restoration of Israel in our present age?  

The true restoration of Israel, on the other hand, is going to be much better than this.  It is as though we forget how He delivered His people from Egypt when we talk about the state of Israel being the evidence of the fulfillment of prophecy.  It is like we do not think things like being delivered by the strong arm of God can happen anymore (Jeremiah 32:21).  The true restoration of Israel will return Israel to a better state than the one they were in when they inherited the land after their time in the wilderness, which the present state of Israel does not even come close to being a comparison of that time, much less a better time to come.    

The prophecy of the restoration of Israel talks about things that don't pertain to gaining land back entirely, but about being given a new heart and a new spirit (Ezekiel 26:26).  It is about being clean from all uncleanness (Ezekiel 26:25).  Revelation 21:27 says, "and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life."  Unfortunately, the Balfour declaration is not capable of restoring these things and the prophecy suggests that the true restoration of Israel will not happen until after the tribulation is over.  

 

 

 

 

The restoration of Israel is occurring in two phases and we are still in phase one.  Ezekiel tells us that the Jews will return to the Land in unbelief.   God is not sharing glory with the nations for Israel's restoration.  God used the nations (just like he has used nations in the past) to accomplish His will and purposes. 

Israel is not a nation because the world made Israel a nation.   Israel was immediately at war one day after the UN granted Israel legal statehood.  Six Arab nations attacked Israel to wipe Israel off of the map and Israel won that war.   The victory that Israel is gained is cannot be explained militarily according to the US West Point War College that studies all wars going back into antiquity.    In fact, they do not study Israel's war in 1948, the six day war in 1967 or the Yom Kippur War in 1973.   They cannot explain how Israel won because there is no reason militarily that Israel should have won. 

As  I stated there is a two-fold process of restoration given in Ezekiel.  There is a physical restoration and spiritual restoration that will come to complete fruition during the millennium.   The Millennial reign of Jesus will see the complete fulfillment of all of God's promises to Israel.   

[OldSchool2]

... TLF, I don't think we are going to agree on this, as I think I and John will agreed that God rules the world and put it in England's hand to do His will:

...that the Most High ruleth the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will.  Daniel 4:25b

What authority do you think England had?

Did they have control of the land to give it to the Jews when the Balfour declaration was drafted?

I believe that England did control the land at the time.

Not during WWI

Prime Minister Lloyd George's directive during WWI was for Gen. Allenby to capture Jerusalem by Christmas 1917; he took it from the Ottomans with two weeks to spare.

Didn't you see "Lawrence of Arabia"?

Yes I have seen Lawrence of Arabia.   Excellent movie.   

The Balfour declaration was written BEFORE this happened, and in fact, was ordered not to be published in Palestine because General Allenby's forces were still south of the Gaza-Beersheba line.    Palestine was still in control of the Ottoman Empire in Turkey....

"... Before the end of the war the rest of Palestine was occupied by the British, and by October 1918 the Ottomans had capitulated. Under the terms of the League of Nations the British won the mandate of Palestine, including Jerusalem. They did not leave until May 1948."

http://www.thejc.com/news/on-day/42312/on-day-allenby-captures-jerusalem

It doesn't matter.  Occupation does not confer ownership.   Occupation is simply occupation....

So the Israelis don't own the so-called "occupied territories": the West Bank and the Golan Heights? According to Cicero, they do. Cicero claimed centuries ago that though theater seats were not private property, as long as you occupied a seat, it was yours.

As for 1918, the Ottoman's were out and the British controlled all of "Palestine"; two years later, the obvious simply became official.

[JohnD]

So the Jews have been coming back for over sixty five years now to the country which declared itself to be Israel but you don't think this is the restoration of that country?  What is it then????

Never underestimate the reasoning of those who do not wish to disturb their predetermined religious beliefs.

Truth, fact, reality do not stand a chance...

Edited September 13, 2015 by JohnD

[thereselittleflower]

... TLF, I don't think we are going to agree on this, as I think I and John will agreed that God rules the world and put it in England's hand to do His will:

...that the Most High ruleth the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will.  Daniel 4:25b

What authority do you think England had?

Did they have control of the land to give it to the Jews when the Balfour declaration was drafted?

I believe that England did control the land at the time.

Not during WWI

Prime Minister Lloyd George's directive during WWI was for Gen. Allenby to capture Jerusalem by Christmas 1917; he took it from the Ottomans with two weeks to spare.

Didn't you see "Lawrence of Arabia"?

Yes I have seen Lawrence of Arabia.   Excellent movie.   

The Balfour declaration was written BEFORE this happened, and in fact, was ordered not to be published in Palestine because General Allenby's forces were still south of the Gaza-Beersheba line.    Palestine was still in control of the Ottoman Empire in Turkey....

"... Before the end of the war the rest of Palestine was occupied by the British, and by October 1918 the Ottomans had capitulated. Under the terms of the League of Nations the British won the mandate of Palestine, including Jerusalem. They did not leave until May 1948."

http://www.thejc.com/news/on-day/42312/on-day-allenby-captures-jerusalem

It doesn't matter.  Occupation does not confer ownership.   Occupation is simply occupation....

So the Israelis don't own the so-called "occupied territories": the West Bank and the Golan Heights? According to Cicero, they do. Cicero claimed centuries ago that though theater seats were not private property, as long as you occupied a seat, it was yours.

As for 1918, the Ottoman's were out and the British controlled all of "Palestine"; two years later, the obvious simply became official.

That's exactly correct.  Israel does not won the "occupied territories."   That's why they are called  "occupied territories."   The terms of treaties Israel is a signer to do not allow an occupier to take the land they occupy.   They are only allowed to occupy as long as is necessary and then they are to leave.  This is an essential issue the world has with what Israel is doing in occupied territories with their continued practice of putting in settlements in land that is not legally theirs.    

The time of Cicero and our time is vastly different.   Cicero was not a member of the UN and not a signer to treaties that govern the behavior of occupiers and occupation as Israel is.

Israel has been thumbing it's nose at the very body which granted them a right to have a nation of their own in Palestine.

 

As for the Ottoman's, yes that is true.   Again  that is irrelevant in regards to the Balfour Declaration which was written in 1917 and conveys nothing but an intent support the establishment of a national Jewish homeland.  The OP's attempt to misuse it in his OP is the reason this has been explained.

 

Edited September 13, 2015 by thereselittleflower