The original mandate of the Balfour Declaration

[thereselittleflower]

 

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.

 

 

No body of man had anything to do with Israel's right to that land; it was granted to them by God Himself. 

There is a difference between what you perceive as a God given right to the land, and the right given by the UN in the creation of the State of Israel dependent on the State of Israel, being a full member of the United Nations, being party to treaties and agreements which are to govern their behavior towards their neighbors.

I am speaking of the latter.

 

 

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The Balfour declaration was written BEFORE this happened, and in fact, was ordered not to be published in Palestine because General Allenby's forces were still south of the Gaza-Beersheba line.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

That's exactly correct.  Israel does not won the "occupied territories."   That's why they are called  "occupied territories"....

... by the liberal press and her Arab neighbors, but none of them dares to take back the Golan, or the West Bank.

But tell me again what all this has to do with you claiming that Great Britain didn't control Palestine during WW I despite the fact Allenby took Jerusalem in 1917 and threw out the Ottoman conquerors by 1918?

[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"....

... by the liberal press and her Arab neighbors, but none of them dares to take back the Golan, or the West Bank.

But tell me again what all this has to do with you claiming that Great Britain didn't control Palestine during WW I despite the fact Allenby took Jerusalem in 1917 and threw out the Ottoman conquerors by 1918?

What does any of this have to do with the OP who claimed the Balfour Declaration made promises, let alone all the land the OP claims?

 

And they are called occupied territories by the UN and in the treaties and agreements Irael is a signer to.   I have already explained this and I see no reason to go round and round in circles about it 

 

 

 

 

[MorningGlory]

 

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.

 

 

No body of man had anything to do with Israel's right to that land; it was granted to them by God Himself. 

There is a difference between what you perceive as a God given right to the land, and the right given by the UN in the creation of the State of Israel dependent on the State of Israel, being a full member of the United Nations, being party to treaties and agreements which are to govern their behavior towards their neighbors.

I am speaking of the latter.

 

 

I agree that Israel is a signatory to U.N. protocols but....The One who gave them that land far outranks the bunch of bureaucrats sitting in New York.  The alleged 'Palestinians' are not relevant since there never WAS a country of Palestine nor are the people in the Palestinian Territories of one ethnicity.  They are mostly Arabs from other countries whose parents and grandparents were displaced by WW2, who have no claim on that land.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

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.

 

 

No body of man had anything to do with Israel's right to that land; it was granted to them by God Himself. 

There is a difference between what you perceive as a God given right to the land, and the right given by the UN in the creation of the State of Israel dependent on the State of Israel, being a full member of the United Nations, being party to treaties and agreements which are to govern their behavior towards their neighbors.

I am speaking of the latter.

 

 

Evidently, you hold the UN in higher regard than you do the sovereign purposes and plans of God.  The earth belongs to God, not the UN and God gave the Israel the land they are sitting and he has never abrogated that.   It was the UN that was a tool in God's hand to restore Israel to that land.   Jew hating anti-Zionists don't like facing up to that reality, but that is what happened.

Israel's land belongs to the Jews by divine decree and you can just suck it up and deal with it. 

[Guest shiloh357]

... 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.

 

Israel isn't occupying anyone's land.   Israel's presence in the West Bank is not as an occupier.   An occupation is when you supplant the government of another country.   The West Bank doesn't belong to anyone.  The West Bank and Gaza are the only two remaining territories of the mandate that have  not been given to any sovereign nation.

So Israel is not illegally placing settlements there.    Israel did not conquer the Palestinians.  Israel did not take anything from the Palestinians.  The West Bank was under the administrative control of Jordan which used the West Bank as the staging ground for its attack on Israel during the Six Day War.   Israel took the West Bank from Jordan but did not over throw the Jordanian government or any government during the Six Day War.   So the West Bank is legally Israel's, actually.   People forget that according to international law, any land you take in war, if you are the victor, is now your land.   That's why Israel is there.   Their presence serves as a buffer against that land being used again as a staging ground for future attacks.

Biblically, and I know this really chafes  anti-Zionists, but the West Bank is biblical Judea and Samaria promised as an eternal covenant to Abraham and his physical descendants. Gaza and the West Bank are given to the tribe of Judah.   82% of the Israelite cities mentioned in the Bible are in the West Bank.   God's sovereign will trumps man's laws and it definitely trumps the ignorant brainless drivel spewed by Anti-Zionists.

[thereselittleflower]

 

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.

 

 

No body of man had anything to do with Israel's right to that land; it was granted to them by God Himself. 

There is a difference between what you perceive as a God given right to the land, and the right given by the UN in the creation of the State of Israel dependent on the State of Israel, being a full member of the United Nations, being party to treaties and agreements which are to govern their behavior towards their neighbors.

I am speaking of the latter.

 

 

I agree that Israel is a signatory to U.N. protocols but....The One who gave them that land far outranks the bunch of bureaucrats sitting in New York.  The alleged 'Palestinians' are not relevant since there never WAS a country of Palestine nor are the people in the Palestinian Territories of one ethnicity.  They are mostly Arabs from other countries whose parents and grandparents were displaced by WW2, who have no claim on that land.

I disagree.  

 

[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.

 

Israel isn't occupying anyone's land.   Israel's presence in the West Bank is not as an occupier.   An occupation is when you supplant the government of another country.   The West Bank doesn't belong to anyone.  The West Bank and Gaza are the only two remaining territories of the mandate that have  not been given to any sovereign nation.

So Israel is not illegally placing settlements there.    Israel did not conquer the Palestinians.  Israel did not take anything from the Palestinians.  The West Bank was under the administrative control of Jordan which used the West Bank as the staging ground for its attack on Israel during the Six Day War.   Israel took the West Bank from Jordan but did not over throw the Jordanian government or any government during the Six Day War.   So the West Bank is legally Israel's, actually.   People forget that according to international law, any land you take in war, if you are the victor, is now your land.   That's why Israel is there.   Their presence serves as a buffer against that land being used again as a staging ground for future attacks.

Biblically, and I know this really chafes  anti-Zionists, but the West Bank is biblical Judea and Samaria promised as an eternal covenant to Abraham and his physical descendants. Gaza and the West Bank are given to the tribe of Judah.   82% of the Israelite cities mentioned in the Bible are in the West Bank.   God's sovereign will trumps man's laws and it definitely trumps the ignorant brainless drivel spewed by Anti-Zionists.

That is indeed an argument they use.    It is an empty argument.

It is an argument I don't find valid and neither have the countries of the UN who are party to the Geneva Convention and others, just as Israel is.  The same UN which granted both the Jews and Palestinians each their own land, after taking land away from the Palestinians to give to the Jewish immigrants.

There was no government of Israel when this was legislated.\ by the UN.

So there not having been a government of  Palestine does not negate land given them  in the partition belonging to them anymore than it would  negate the land given to the Jews belonging to them.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 14, 2015 by thereselittleflower

[FresnoJoe]

Your not understanding.

England had no right to promise any land.  Lord Balfour had no right to promise any land.

~

Amen Beloved, Amen~!

When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance and divided the human race, He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the people of Israel. Deuteronomy 32:8 (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

No Man

he gave them the lands of the nations, and they fell heir to what others had toiled for-- Psalm 105:44 (New International Version)

But No

Then say to them, Thus says the Lord God: Behold, I will take the people of Israel from the nations among which they have gone, and will gather them from all around, and bring them to their own land. Ezekiel 37:21 (English Standard Version)

Man

“The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine. For you are strangers and sojourners with me. Leviticus 25:23 (English Standard Version)

[Guest shiloh357]

... 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.

 

Israel isn't occupying anyone's land.   Israel's presence in the West Bank is not as an occupier.   An occupation is when you supplant the government of another country.   The West Bank doesn't belong to anyone.  The West Bank and Gaza are the only two remaining territories of the mandate that have  not been given to any sovereign nation.

So Israel is not illegally placing settlements there.    Israel did not conquer the Palestinians.  Israel did not take anything from the Palestinians.  The West Bank was under the administrative control of Jordan which used the West Bank as the staging ground for its attack on Israel during the Six Day War.   Israel took the West Bank from Jordan but did not over throw the Jordanian government or any government during the Six Day War.   So the West Bank is legally Israel's, actually.   People forget that according to international law, any land you take in war, if you are the victor, is now your land.   That's why Israel is there.   Their presence serves as a buffer against that land being used again as a staging ground for future attacks.

Biblically, and I know this really chafes  anti-Zionists, but the West Bank is biblical Judea and Samaria promised as an eternal covenant to Abraham and his physical descendants. Gaza and the West Bank are given to the tribe of Judah.   82% of the Israelite cities mentioned in the Bible are in the West Bank.   God's sovereign will trumps man's laws and it definitely trumps the ignorant brainless drivel spewed by Anti-Zionists.

That is indeed an argument they use.    It is an empty argument.

It is an argument I don't find valid and neither have the countries of the UN who are party to the Geneva Convention and others, just as Israel is.  The same UN which granted both the Jews and Palestinians each their own land, after taking land away from the Palestinians to give to the Jewish immigrants.

There was no government of Israel when this was legislated.\ by the UN.

So there not having been a government of  Palestine does not negate land given them  in the partition belonging to them anymore than it would  negate the land given to the Jews belonging to them.

 

 

 

 

More ignorant anti-Zionist garbage.

It is not an empty argument at all.  It is fact and it is reality on the ground and it is history. No land was ever taken away from Palestinians.  The Palestinians were have never had any land.   There was never a nation of Palestine from which to take land.   Israel paid for their land from absentee Turks who owned it.   The land the Jews had was their land legally before Israel became a nation.  The UN did not grant land.  The UN granted nationhood.   

It was the British who took land away from the Jews and gave it to the Arabs.   The Jews were not "immigrants."   The Jews actually owned the land they were living on.   And it wasn't taken from the Palestinians.

The Palestinians are not indigenous to the land.  They were not even there when the Jews bought it.   The "Palestinians"  didn't live there until the Jews bought the land and started      building farms and cities.   The Arab migrant workers came from Arab nations whose economies were in shambles in places like Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria.    The modern "Palestinian"  is descended from those migrant workers.    The lineage of Palestinians in the land generally only back about 80-100 years.   They were not even called Palestinians until 1964.  It is completely bogus and it is a lie to say they were displaced or had land taken from them.

Israel did have a working government infrastructure already in place before they were granted nationhood.   

Israel has never taken any land away from the Palestinians.   The West Bank and Gaza are still not under the sovereignty of any nation, not even Israel.   The land, from tkhe standpoint  of International law, still doesn't belong to anyone.   The argument that land was taken from the Palestinians is wrong on two counts.  It is wrong from the standpoint that the Palestinians are not sovereign nation and never were and thus have never had any land.    Secondly, Israel doesn't own the West Bank in terms of sovereignty.   Israel only has administrative control and since the land belongs to no one, building settlements isn't illegal.  It doesn't take anything away from the Palestinians.  Israel has the right, by virtue of successful self-defense in war, to take the land, but they have not done so.   In fact, they tried, in 2000 to give the land to the Palestinians, and the Palestinians rejected the offer. I realize the racist, pro-terror websites you quote to find support for your position doesn't inform you about that aspect of history.

People like you squawk and screech about Israel taking land from the Palestinians but every time they had the opportunity to create a Palestinian state the Palestinians and the Arab nations rejected the offer because the offer did not include a complete dismantling of Israel as well.  The Palestinians don't want a two state solution.  They refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of Israel's existence.  They don't want a state next to Israel.  They want a state that supplants Israel and negates Israel's entire existence and relegates the Jews to living as dhimmis under Arab rule.   That's what they want.