Sauron

Thus Loren's fallacy of lumping all Palestinians and their desires together is exposed. Palestinians are not monolithic, any more than Jews are.

Dr Rick

The Balfour Declaration of 1917; the League of Nations Mandate, which incorporated the Balfour Declaration; the United Nations partition resolution of 1947; Israel's admission to the UN in 1949; U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, and the recognition of Israel by most other states.

Optional

The Balfour declaration did nothing more than declare that England thinks it would be a good idea for there to be a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and it'll help how it can. Note here that at the time it really did mean Jewish homeland IN PALESTINE, they had no intention as of yet of forming a seperate Jewish state. And intention or not, this was not a mandate for a nation, it was simply an opinion that a homeland would be a good thing.

The League of Nations "Mandate" was an attempt to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine, as supported in the Balfour Declaration. It made some good tries at getting something workable set up, but never quite managed to do it. They actually spent most of their time trying to negotiate cease-fires, and to enforce the cease-fires once negotiated. If I remember correcty, the British Mandate in Palestine outlived the LoN without ever getting much more than a few weeks here and there of uneasy peace. Certainly they never got an actual government off the ground.

The partition as outlined by the UN was never applied, so it doesn't apply.

Anything that happened after Israel declared itself to be a nation (including UN recognition, recognition by most other countries, etc) could not, logically, have been a mandate. A mandate has to exist BEFORE the thing it mandates exists, or else it ain't a mandate.

I'm unfamiliar with UN resolution 242, but as you put it in your list after the 1949 recognition of Israel by the UN, I suspect it would fall under the paragraph above.

So where's the mandate?

-me

Sauron

And of course, few people realize that the Husayn-McMahon correspondence promised the same thing to the Arabs. And promised it to them first. But the British, playing the game of divide and conquer, made the same promises to both sides.

We can once again thank Britain for sowing seeds that later generations would wind up harvesting.

Dr Rick

1. An authoritative command or instruction.
2. A command or an authorization given by a political electorate to its representative.
3a. A commission from the League of Nations authorizing a member nation to administer a territory. b. A region under such administration.
4. Law a. An order issued by a superior court or an official to a lower court. b. A contract by which one party agrees to perform services for another without payment.
TRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: man�dat�ed, man�dat�ing, man�dates
1. To assign (a colony or territory) to a specified nation under a mandate.
2. To make mandatory, as by law; decree or require: mandated desegregation of public schools.
ETYMOLOGY: Latin mandtum, from neuter past participle of mandre, to order. See man-2 in Appendix I.

Now go back and tell me again how those things I listed is not covered under the defintion of mandate.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Jat
And the goal of the Palestinians is the liberation of Palestine from the Israelis, same thing.

But their definition of "Palestine" includes all of Israel.

The terrorists, however, desire the destruction of all of Israel. Pulling out off the occupied territories would simply be granting them a base next door, it would do nothing to stop the terrrorism.

Israel is an illegal state.

Ah, you show your true colors. You want the holocaust repeated.

Loren Pechtel

Of course the Palestinians aren't monolithic! However, the terrorist leaders all want to see Israel destroyed. It doesn't really matter what the rank and file want--they are being manipulated anyway.

slept2long

So the fact that there aren't any soldiers in those shots means they were trying to avoid snipers? I agree there is a danger from snipers but it does not justify such mistreatment of civilians. If anything it should bring about more care on the part of the Israelis to not get involved in situations that could leave them ties down in an area.

They know some of them have weapons. They know the ISM was unarmed.
Protesters usually protest not look for a fight. These people wanted a fight and got it.
In this instance only. Rachel Corrie got run over for protesting. Nobody bothered to try and remove her.

Optional

First of all, let me just state again for the record that I don't think the legality or illegality of Israel's founding has anything to do with modern practical politics; Israel exists, that it is a fact, and it must be dealt with; it is of historical interest only.

That having been said...

Well, I'm just very confused as to which definition of 'mandate' you think applies.

I looked back up the thread and noticed that what you originally SAID was that Israel had a specific mandate to exist, unlike Canada and the USA. Since I'm fairly sure that both Canada and the USA are members of the UN and recognized as nations by every country in the world, that can't be what you meant by 'mandate'.

So what we're left with is 'The Balfour Declaration of 1917; the League of Nations Mandate, which incorporated the Balfour Declaration; the United Nations partition resolution of 1947'.

Now, item two there matches up with definition 3b above, but since you are (a) using it as proof that Israel did have a 'mandate', and (b) specifically talking about Israel having a 'mandate', a country that post-dated the 'mandate' spoken of in 3a and 3b above, then THAT can't be what you meant by 'mandate'.

But, looking at definition 1 above, that wouldn't seem to apply either, as the only body that could be said to have the authority to command or instruct that Israel be created would be the UN, and they never actually did that.

Looking at definition 2 above, that would not seem to apply either, since no Israeli electorate existed before Israel was actually created, and the UN isn't exactly what you might call a 'political electorate' even if they HAD given any command or authorization for the nation of Israel to be created, which they did not.

For both definitions 1 and 2 above, they might have applied had the proposed Israel/Palestine partition ever been actually put into effect... Unfortunately, it never was, so it doesn't really count.

And, finally, looking at definition 4 above, that doesn't seem to apply since it is purely a legal term, and no international court existed at the time of Israel's founding (or even today, practically speaking).

So.... Which definition do you think applies?

-me

Dr Rick

Then why are you posting about it, and why did you make the claim that Israel is an "illegal state" in the first place?

This whole exercise has just become pointless, and I find sematics boring.

To clear up the confusion, lets discard the part about:
...unless you can come up with a reference that supports it.

The part about a mandate having to be implemented to be a mandate is deserves similar treatment.

The key deferentiation in that phrase is specific.
The US, Canada, and Israel have mandates to exist under international law; however, the Balfour Declaration and UNSCR 242 make a reference to Israel, not the US or
Canada.

...and UNSCR 242.

The Balfour Declaration of 1917: An authoritative command or instruction.
The League of Nations Mandate: An authoritative command or instruction and a League of Nations authorization
The Balfour Declaration: An authoritative command or instruction.
The United Nations partition resolution of 1947: An authoritative command or instruction.
Israel's admission to the UN in 1949: An authoritative command or instruction.
U.N. Security Council Resolution 242: An authoritative command or instruction.
The recognition of Israel by most other states: An authoritative command or instruction.