Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Frances 'Cassandra' Coppola Profile picture
Frances 'Cassandra' Coppola
@Frances_Coppola
Professional writer, speaker and singer. Author of The Case for People's QE (Polity). Slowly writing The Absolute Essentials of Banking (Routledge). Autistic.
19 subscribers
Aug 8 • 7 tweets • 2 min read
When I look at this map, I see betrayal. Not of the Jews, as Israel likes to claim, but of the Arab peoples of the Middle East, and in particular those living to the west of the Jordan. Image Running across the map, cutting Syria off from Palestine and Transjordan, is the Sykes-Picot line. This represents Britain's betrayal of the promise of independence it made to the Arab peoples who, by rising up against their Ottoman overlords, helped the Allies win WW1.
Aug 5 • 7 tweets • 3 min read
Hansard really is a goldmine. This is from a House of Lords debate on 1st March 1923. api.parliament.uk/historic-hansa…

If you've never heard of the "now famous Beirut and Aleppo line" (I hadn't), it's the line on the map that the British drew to exclude coastal districts of southern Turkey, Syria and Lebanon from the pledge of independence they made to the Arabs in 1915. The map (from the 1937 Peel Report) shows where the line ran.Image
Image
Image
Image The British argued that the line extended far further south than the limit of the Sanjak of Damascus, and on that basis claimed that Palestine west of the Jordan was not included in the 1915 pledge. This fudge enabled them to protect the Balfour Declaration, whose promise of a Jewish national home in that land was only achievable if the Arab residents were denied independence.
Aug 2 • 17 tweets • 3 min read
Astonishing paragraph in the Peel Commission's 1937 report. Balfour didn't just ignore the Palestinian Arabs, he didn't even know they were there. Image "In February, 1922, a delegation of Arab Leaders informed the Colonial Office that 'the people of Palestine' could not accept the Balfour Declaration or the Mandate and demanded their national independence".

Written in 1937.

"Palestinians" were not invented by Yasser Arafat.
Jul 31 • 6 tweets • 9 min read
I suggest you read the Hansard entry for Wednesday 21 July 1937: hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1937-0….
Read especially the speech from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and note particularly his comment about the Balfour Declaration, the text of which was taken in its entirety into the League of Nations Mandate without alteration:

"The pledge of Great Britain and of other Allied Governments was not Palestine as a home for the Jews. It was a Jewish National Home in Palestine—and there is a distinction. The phrasing is clear and the intention is clear. That was made very clear to the Jews at the time and was published to the whole world."

Neither the Balfour Declaration nor the League of Nations Mandate promised that all of Mandatory Palestine would become the Jewish homeland. Therefore the Peel Commission's partition proposal was not unlawful, as you wrongly claim.

You should also pay attention to his comments about the nature of the Mandate and the fact that it could be changed (article 27) or terminated (article 28).

This paragraph is the Secretary of State's actual recommendation to the House:

"The Commission are of opinion that the ideals of the two peoples and the intolerable burden upon His Majesty's Government can only be resolved by giving Jews and Arabs sovereign independence and self-government, not over the whole of Palestine but each over a part of it. With that conclusion His Majesty's Government agree. Only by partition can the ideals of both be realised, only by partition can peace be restored to these two nationalities, so that they will be able in the future one to help the other without fear of domination by either. It is the fear of domination of Jew by Arab and of Arab by Jew that is the root of the trouble, and the only way that can be removed is by partition and self-government. That is provided for in Article 28 of the Mandate which, being a Mandate, always envisaged the termination and the fruition of the mandatory period. We are only temporarily trustees in Palestine, trustees on behalf of the League. It is not our territory."

In other words, the Secretary of State was recommending termination of the Mandate, as provided for in Article 28. avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/p…

Thus, the Peel Commission's recommended partition would not have been enacted by the British Government, but by the League of Nations on termination of the Mandate.

The House did not endorse the Peel Commission recommendations as you wrongly claim. It voted to put forward the Peel Commission proposals to the League of Nations:

"That the proposals contained in Command Paper No. 5513 relating to Palestine should be brought before the League of Nations with a view to enabling His Majesty's Government, after adequate inquiry, to present to Parliament a definite scheme taking into full account all the recommendations of the Command Paper."

The British Government's despatch to the High Commissioner for Palestine in December 1937 says that the Government accepted "in principle" the partition proposal but did not accept the tentative plan outlined in the Commission's report and in particular not the Commission's proposal for compulsory transfer of Arabs from Jewish areas. The Government was clearly getting cold feet. un.org/unispal/docume…

The historian Benny Morris says the Cabinet secretly voted against the Peel Commission plan in December 1937. The Woodhead commission was tasked with producing a detailed plan for partition, but several historians say that its real job was to wreck the scheme.

Your statement that the British Government "accepted the recommendations of the Peel Commission and the announcement was endorsed by Parliament" does considerable violence to the known facts and evidence. Since terminating the Mandate was perfectly lawful - indeed, expected at some point - the proposal put to the House and subsequently to the League of Nations did not "tear up international law", whatever the US may have thought. It was for the League to decide what form of governance would apply after termination of the Mandate. Other Mandates ended with creation of independent sovereign states.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies noted that France, faced with tensions between Christians and Muslims similar to those between Jews and Arabs in Palestine, opted for partition into a Christian state (Lebanon) and a Muslim state (Syria). He clearly regarded this as a sensible solution. After nearly a century of bloodshed, we now know that partition along ethnic or religious lines solves nothing. But France's decision set a precedent for partition of territory following the termination of a Mandate.

I've already shown that the Palestine Mandate did not promise that all of Palestine would become a homeland for the Jews, and it certainly didn't promise them a sovereign state in the whole of the Mandatory area. Partition subsequent to termination of the Mandate therefore can't have been unlawful for Palestine.

As for the role of the Arabs in killing the proposal: it was hardly unreasonable of them to oppose a proposal which would have forcibly uprooted them from their homes and lands and transferred them to another part of the territory. Indeed, since the League of Nations required Britain to protect the rights of Palestinian Arabs, this part of the proposal was arguably unlawful. Even in the July 1937 Hansard record, several Members of Parliament were uncomfortable with it.

I think we are all tired of your fact-free rants and your Arab-hate, @melanielatest.
Jul 7 • 20 tweets • 3 min read
Interesting development: Muhammad accepts donations in Bitcoin. This bypasses the suffocating constriction Israel has put on Gaza's banks, but it still falls foul of the exchange rate problem. 🧵 Nearly all transactions in Gaza are in physical cash, of which there is a fixed (and gradually declining) supply. So e-money, whether bank deposits, digital wallets or cryptocurrency, must be exchanged for physical cash before it can be used.
Jun 25 • 13 tweets • 3 min read
"In the absence of major initiatives to tackle barriers to employment, including subtle discrimination by employers, the Government’s proposed changes would simply result in higher unemployment among sick and disabled people as more of them were deemed capable of work..." "And even for those who find work, the benefit cuts are likely to mean a vast increase in poverty.

Sick and disabled people do not deserve such harsh treatment..."
Jun 18 • 15 tweets • 2 min read
I did a better chart. PIP/DLA claimants by age group, split by those scoring 4 points in 1 or more daily living activity and those scoring less than 4 points in all daily living activities. Figures from a DWP FOI response kindly provided by Paul Bivand. Image Why the 4 points/less than 4 points split? Because the Government proposes to remove PIP from those who score less than 4 points on all ten daily living activities. Those are the people in the red bars on the chart.
Jun 17 • 12 tweets • 6 min read
Who told Trump to pull the US out of JCPOA?

"Mr Trump has... continued his condemnations of the Iranian government and now abandoned the nuclear arms agreement with that nation - citing, in part, evidence presented by Mr Netanyahu."

Written in 2018. bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-…Image
Image The White House's statement issued on 8th May 2018 says:
"Intelligence recently released by Israel provides compelling details about Iran's past secret efforts to develop nuclear weapons."
Goes on to make several allegations about both JCPOA and Iran.
trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-stat…Image
May 28 • 13 tweets • 3 min read
If you want to understand Thames Water's convoluted corporate structure and those controversial dividends, Coppola Comment's in-depth analysis from last year covers it in detail. Now free to read. The link to the post is in the next tweet. 👇 Image The too-important-to-fail public utility is embedded in a parasitical extractive structure (see image below). The Kemble group of companies is insolvent and has been for quite some time.

coppolacomment.substack.com/p/thames-water…Image
May 10 • 15 tweets • 2 min read
I think Tim has missed the significance of the new Pope's choice of name. Let me explain. First, let's backtrack to Pope Francis's election. He chose his papal name in honour of St. Francis of Assissi. St. Francis is my patron saint, so I know a bit about him. 1/
Apr 28 • 11 tweets • 3 min read
I wrote a post documenting the deaths by fire in Gaza, and observed that this meets the dictionary definition of "holocaust". Predictably, someone on Substack notes accused me of antisemitism. *sigh* /1 True, I didn't mention Oct 7th. I've covered it in previous pieces, so didn't think I needed to discuss it again. But he insisted that Oct 7th must feature in every piece about the Gaza conflagration. He accused me of "bad editorial practice" for omitting it. 2/
Apr 24 • 12 tweets • 3 min read
MP: "Do you believe that the Palestinians are entitled to a state?"
Hausdorff: "Self-determination does not give one a right to a state in international law."
MP: "I'd like to know whether Natasha Hausdorff believes that Palestinians have the right to a state?"
Hausdorff: "Palestinians have self-determination in autonomy. So according to international law, no".

Hausdorff shot herself in the foot. If "autonomy" is sufficient for Palestinians and they have no right to a Palestinian state, then autonomy must also be sufficient for Jews and they have no right to a Jewish state.

After all, as Hausdorff herself says, "the same rules have to apply". I think Hausdorff's application of uti possidetis juris also undermines the legitimacy of a Jewish state. She said uti possidetis juris "sets the start point" for the new state. When the British mandate ended and Israel declared independence, Israel was a majority Arab state.
Apr 22 • 14 tweets • 3 min read
The present State of Israel is a racist apartheid state and has been for its entire existence.

Truth is not antisemitism. The State of Israel has been starving people in Gaza to a greater or lesser extent for 25 years. themintmagazine.com/malnutrition-i…
Apr 7 • 10 tweets • 3 min read
In my latest piece at @themintmag, I've outlined what I think the real purpose of Trump's tariffs is. Or rather, purposes. 1/ There are three different tariffs:
- the 10% universal tariff
- the "trade deficit" tariff, determined by country
- the product tariff, e.g. 25% on all car imports
As I explain in my article, each has a different purpose. /2 themintmagazine.com/trumps-card-wh…
Feb 21 • 4 tweets • 2 min read
Actually, you've set up a new company called Reform 2025, of which you and Zia Yusuf are sole directors. It's a company limited by guarantee and has no shareholders. But it's not "owned" by its members. 1/ …te.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/162607… x.com/Nigel_Farage/s… Your old company, Reform UK Party Ltd, still exists. It is a private limited company. You have sold your shareholding in this company to your new company, Reform 2025 Ltd. …te.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/116948…
Feb 8 • 6 tweets • 2 min read
This is like a case study in extreme apartheid. They built a cage around a Palestinian family's home to separate it from the Jewish settlement surrounding it. The only gate to the cage is controlled by the Israeli army. The Jewish settlement is completely illegal. And so is the cage. And the presence of the IDF. And the IDF's refusal to open the gate to allow a sick elderly woman to be taken to hospital. They'd have let her die.
Feb 8 • 8 tweets • 3 min read
For 16 months there has been a culture of silence about the true nature of the "peaceful Israeli communities" attacked on 7/10. Time that silence was broken. Those communities were established by Israel to secure the lands stolen from the Palestinians expelled to the Gaza Strip. In other words, to prevent the Palestinians returning. Image
Image
Image
Jan 23 • 21 tweets • 5 min read
This is the source of the Treasury's claim that in 2006, 90% of Waspi women (women born 6/4/1950 to 5/4/1960) knew women's state pension age was rising. At the time of the survey, these women were aged 45-56.
1/ webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20100208…Image The survey was carried out by the National Centre for Social Research and Professor Stephen McKay. It used a nationally representative sample of 1,950 adults aged 18-69. The sample was fairly evenly spread across age groups but there were more women than men.
Jan 3 • 7 tweets • 2 min read
He was repeatedly warned that his algorithmic stablecoin could go into a death spiral. Instead of listening, he insulted those who warned him. But being a blithering idiot and too arrogant to listen to expert advice doesn't make him a fraudster. The question the court will have to answer is whether he intended to defraud people of their money. I'm not sure he did.
Dec 9, 2024 • 12 tweets • 2 min read
I did a detailed analysis of the reasons for Silvergate's collapse, including the FHLB's decision to pull its funding, in March 2023. Nic Carter has of course gone for a conspiracy theory. But there are simpler explanations. coppolacomment.com/2023/03/lesson… x.com/Bitfinexed/sta… One possibility is that the rapid fall in the fair value of Silvergate's assets meant it failed to meet the FHLB's tangible capital rule, which is more stringent for smaller banks than the Fed's capital requirements.
Nov 11, 2024 • 14 tweets • 3 min read
Still reading Meir Kahane. Blimey he's racist. And hopelessly illogical. After saying "Arabs can find a home in any of their 22 states", he then writes an entire chapter explaining why they can't. But at least he repudiates the sickening liberal Zionist gaslighting of Palestinians, which has gone on for decades and continues to this day in "peace proposals" that envisage Palestinians happily living in segregated bantustans with fewer rights than Jews.