Mind, you Thomas, this white paper s "an" interpretation of the Balfour declaration of 1917, not everyones interpretation. Intersting how The Hashemite of mecca got to be Kings of Transjordan:
With reference to the Constitution which it is now intended to establish in Palestine, the draft of
which has already been published, it is desirable to make certain points clear. In the first place, it is not
the case, as has been represented by the Arab Delegation, that during the war His Majesty's Government
gave an undertaking that an independent national government should be at once established in Palestine.
This representation mainly rests upon a letter dated the 24th October, 1915, from Sir Henry McMahon,
then His Majesty's High Commissioner in Egypt, to the Sharif of Mecca, now King Hussein of the
Kingdom of the Hejaz. That letter is quoted as conveying the promise to the Sherif of Mecca to
recognise and support the independence of the Arabs within the territories proposed by him. But this
promise was given subject to a reservation made in the same letter, which excluded from its scope,
among other territories, the portions of Syria lying to the west of the District of Damascus. This
reservation has always been regarded by His Majesty's Government as covering the vilayet of Beirut and
the independent Sanjak of Jerusalem. The whole of Palestine west of the Jordan was thus excluded from Sir. Henry McMahon's pledge.
As to your point and the question of establishing a "Jewish Home in Palestine" and not "all" Palestine, no disagreement from me, however, please use the same grammatical accuracy in interpreting the 422 resolution, it says there, "withdrawal from territories" NOT ALL, it also stipulates that the exact final borders (and thus which territories are returned or not) be determined by negotiations not by acts of terrorism. Mind you, Israel, in principle, already discharged it responsibility under 422 by returning the whole Sinai to Egypt, that fully qualifies as "territories" in the region.
Zeev |
